Oral Answers to Questions

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Student Nurses

Harry Barnes: If he will hold discussions with the Treasury and the Department of Health on changing his Department's definition of remunerative employment to include student nurses on clinical placements.

Chris Pond: The child tax credit introduced in April 2001 extended support to around 100,000 families, including students and student nurses, who were previously excluded from support under the working families tax credit. Time spent by student nurses on clinical placements is a period of study, not paid employment, and such periods therefore cannot be treated as remunerative work for working tax credit purposes.

Harry Barnes: Student nurses undertake nursing duties as part of their studies. Why can they not qualify for the child-care element of working families tax credit? One of my constituents may have to pack in her studies after having a baby because she cannot afford child care. Does this not remove a vital future resource from the health service, and waste the bursary moneys that have already been paid in connection with my constituent's studies so far?

Chris Pond: As my hon. Friend will know, we are doing all that we can to increase the number of nurses and student nurses. He will also know that we have made a public commitment that every health-care student will be entitled to child-care grants for children under five, worth up to 70 per cent. of child-care costs. The Department of Health is currently developing the means to make that commitment a reality by autumn this year. That means that while student nurses are not entitled to the child-care element of working families tax credit because they are not in remunerative employment, they will be entitled to parallel and broadly similar support if they have young children.

Bob Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend also discuss with the Treasury the definition of "remunerative employment" in relation to school crossing patrol officers—the lollipop men and women who do such a great job looking after our children, standing outside in all weathers and all conditions? As he knows, they are very low paid and often have to claim benefits and other allowances. At present they are not entitled to the higher-earnings disregard. Would my hon. Friend consider awarding it to them? They deserve it, and we might find it easier to recruit such people as a result.

Chris Pond: The whole House will want to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of school crossing keepers. He has been assiduous in raising the issue with my Department. Whether extending the disregard would be an appropriate way of rewarding those people is in question; we are considering it, but I cannot promise that we will be able to act. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to those whose case he has raised.

Benefit Fraud

Syd Rapson: What measures he is taking to combat fraud in the benefit system.

Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the level of benefit fraud in (a) 1997 and (b) 2003.

Andrew Smith: Tackling fraud is a key priority. Ours is the first Government to measure fraud properly, to set targets for its reduction, and to legislate for the tools to do the job. We are penalising more fraudsters, recovering more money and putting out the clear message that benefit fraud is wrong.
	The latest figures show that since 1997 we have cut fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 29 per cent., which equates to £400 million a year. Beating benefit fraud is good news for legitimate claimants and good news for taxpayers.

Syd Rapson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. We all agree that tackling benefit fraud is crucial to maintaining trust in the system, but what advice can he give to the fledgling Liberal Democrat councillors of Portsmouth city council, who are in the difficult situation of having to find £200,000 from their meagre budgets simply to deal with the backlog?

Andrew Smith: My advice to Liberal Democrats in Portsmouth—fledgling or otherwise—is the same as to other local authorities: to work with us in combating fraud. More than 80 per cent. of local authorities are involved with the verification framework, and £160 million has already been provided to help local authorities with anti-fraud work. That sum increased to £233 million for the three years from April 2003. I do not know whether Portsmouth is one of those authorities, but I shall check, as, I dare say, will my hon. Friend.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but can he give the comparable figure for errors and failures to pay out on the part of his Department, and assure the House that he is indeed in control of his Department and its officials? In the past year alone, there have been between seven and 12 cases of people making legitimate claims for all sorts of benefits, particularly the pension credit, and then having to extract an apology from his Department because it failed to pay them. Is he in control, or are the officials getting carried away with their errors?

Andrew Smith: I am glad that the hon. Lady confirms that we apologise when we get things wrong, and I of course apologise for any individual such instance. Given that fraud is down by 39 per cent. since 1997, and that fraud and error are down by 29 per cent., it is clear that error has not fallen as far and needs to fall further. However, it has been falling.

David Ruffley: Last year, the National Audit Office published a report on tackling benefit fraud, which said of housing benefit fraud:
	"Although a Government review in 2000 proposed partial simplification as a first step, in practice the scheme has become more complex, with many changes."
	Can the Secretary of State tell us why he has failed?

Andrew Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have not only introduced measures to simplify housing benefit administration; we are piloting the flat rate local housing allowance, which takes account of income, family circumstances and area and cuts out reams of red tape in the administration of that benefit. We have to evaluate that pilot properly, but as I reported to the House last week, the early results are very encouraging. I repeat the injunction to all local authorities that I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson): it is very important that central Government and local government work closely together to simplify benefits such as housing benefit, to make sure that they are efficiently administered and to tackle fraud.

George Osborne: If the Secretary of State is making such progress in tackling fraud and error in his Department, can he predict when he expects to produce a set of departmental annual reports that are not qualified by the National Audit Office because they are full of fraud and error?

Andrew Smith: We are of course working very closely with the NAO, precisely in order to get our accounts into the shape that everyone wants them to be in. As I said, we have made considerable progress in combating fraud and error, but I will not take lectures from Conservative Front Benchers, given that the Conservatives did not even measure fraud properly when in government.

Pension Credit

David Taylor: What recent estimate he has made of the number of eligible pensioners in the east midlands who have yet to make an application for pension credit; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Smith: We cannot estimate eligibility with precision, especially at the regional level, because we would have to take only partial data from the national survey, which would in any case be a couple of years out of date. But today we have published the latest monthly pension credit progress report, which shows that up to 29 February, 2.26 million pensioner households and 2.73 million individuals across the country, and 158,000 households and 192,000 individuals in the east midlands were already receiving pension credit.

David Taylor: Our Government have achieved a great deal in their focus on pensioner poverty, but the take-up level of pension credit causes considerable concern. Does the Secretary of State agree with last week's Pensions Policy Institute report? It said that a single, flat-rate pension, set at guaranteed credit level, paid to all and indexed to earnings, had much to commend it, being simpler, more robust, fairer and affordable in the long term. Is not that the way to tackle present and future take-up problems?

Andrew Smith: As we have debated on several occasions in the House, there are always attractions of a flat-rate, universal pension and other payments that can be put forward. However, the arithmetic is such that if we spent all the money that goes into pension credit on the basic state pension, although we could increase the pension for a single pensioner from £77 to something like £90, the poorest pensioners in our country would be more than £30 a week worse off as a consequence. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on our progress in tackling pensioner poverty. He will be interested to know that 2,745 households in his constituency now receive pension credit, which is 36 per cent. more than received the minimum income guarantee.

Pensions

Eric Illsley: What advice is being given by his Department regarding the value of the state retirement pension for people born after 1962.

Malcolm Wicks: We provide information through such means as leaflets and the internet on how the amounts of basic and additional state pension are determined, and on known changes. Anyone can ask for a state pension forecast and we also now have combined forecasts, which combine state and company forecasts. More than 1 million have been sent out.

Eric Illsley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response, but I was somewhat surprised, while pursuing a recent constituency inquiry into a contribution record and the value of a future retirement pension, to be told by benefits office staff that the value of the retirement pension of anyone born after 1962 would be negligible. If that is not the case, will my hon. Friend ensure that benefits officers are reminded of the absolute truth of that matter, to prevent such misleading information from being circulated?

Malcolm Wicks: My colleagues in the Department were intrigued by my hon. Friend's reference to 1962; I knew that it was not the date when Barnsley last won the FA cup. In all seriousness, I hear my hon. Friend's point and if anyone in the Pension Service has misled him, I apologise on its behalf. We have rigorous training and education programmes but on this occasion, someone has clearly said something that is just plain daft. We will learn the lessons from that, but we have an excellent Pension Service, which is now doing a very good job across the country, including making large numbers—about 350,000—of home visits. However, on this occasion, we have clearly failed my hon. Friend.

David Willetts: May I invite the Minister to agree that it would be just plain daft to expect that the pension crisis could be solved by putting more and more pensioners on to means-tested benefits, thereby penalising people for saving? Does he not agree that the best way forward, for people who were born before 1962 and for those born after 1962, would be to raise the value of the basic state pension? Is that not what Mr. Alan Pickering has proposed this week, and why does the Minister not follow his advice?

Malcolm Wicks: It was a Conservative Government who, no doubt advised by the young—then even younger—hon. Gentleman, abolished the earnings link with the basic state pension in 1980. That meant that this Government inherited a situation of much pensioner poverty, which we had to tackle through targeted means. On the important issue of savings, whereas under the Conservative Government there was a pound for pound reduction against income support for any savings, we have introduced the savings credit element of the pension credit so that savings can be rewarded.

David Willetts: Does the Minister not recognise, however, that there is a growing consensus that the best way forward is to increase the value of the basic state pension, to help to get pensioners off means-tested benefits and to encourage people to save? That is what the National Association of Pension Funds wants, what the charities looking after old people want and what the Conservative party is calling for. Why is the Minister in a minority, opposing that proposal?

Malcolm Wicks: The difficult and, I am bound to say—in terms of its impact—cruel logic of the Conservative proposals is that as the basic state pension increased, apparently in line with earnings, the poorest and most hard pressed, including those on pension credit, would presumably receive only a price-inflation increase. The cruel logic of the hon. Gentleman's proposals is that the poorest elderly—who are often the oldest, two out of three of them women—would gain least from the Tory proposals.

Diane Abbott: On reducing pensioner poverty, is not the real problem with reliance on mean-tested benefits that, despite the time and money spent by both the previous Conservative Government and this Government on increasing the take-up of claims, pensioners are more reluctant than any other group of claimants to apply for means-tested benefits? So long as the Government rely on means-tested benefits to relieve pensioner poverty, a substantial minority of pensioners will remain poor.

Malcolm Wicks: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged, to put every extra billion pounds—we have now spent some £9 billion extra on pensions since 1997—simply on to the flat rate would make life easier for our Department, in that it would be administratively simpler, but would it be fairer? Would it be fairer to women or to the poor and hard pressed? Of course, the answer is no. Although there are some who wish to knock pension credit, it is proving a great success. We are on target, so much so that 1.9 million individuals—almost 2 million—are better off financially because of pension credit. I hope, therefore, that colleagues will not talk about this as a failure when in fact it is a considerable success for public service.

Disability Living Allowance

James Gray: If he will make a statement on the number of people claiming disability living allowance.

Maria Eagle: In the five years to31 August 2003, the number of severely disabled people receiving disability living allowance increased by more than 25 per cent. to more than 2.5 million. In 2003–04, we expect to spend some £7.5 billion on helping people with the extra costs arising from their disability.

James Gray: A constituent of mine was, tragically, one of those involved in the Bali bomb outrage, in which he lost his right arm. On returning to the UK, he applied for disability living allowance but was told that he was not eligible for it because he had been resident abroad in Beijing for six months. Will the Minister consider changing that rule, so that people who have been disabled in such terrorist tragedies or who are serving in our armed services overseas would none the less be eligible for the allowance immediately on their return to the UK?

Maria Eagle: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's constituent. If we changed for individual groups of people the eligibility for DLA and the time that a person has to wait before getting the benefit in payment, it would make the administration of the benefit incredibly difficult. We shall, however, bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has brought to the House today, and we shall certainly consider what he has said.

Steve Webb: Will the Minister confirm that the last time that a Government attempted to measure the proportion of people entitled to this important disability benefit was in 1996–97, before the present Government even came to power? Will she confirm that the estimate at that time was that half of all seriously disabled people entitled to this important benefit were not claiming it? Why have the Government done no work on assessing the scale of the problem now? Why has there not been a mass take-up campaign for DLA? Is it acceptable that £1 billion for disabled people is going unclaimed every year?

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman might not have heard my response to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), which was that the number of people taking up disability living allowance and qualifying for it has increased by 25 per cent. It is difficult to say, ahead of a claim, who would be entitled to the benefit and who would not, because it is not income related. Rather, it is dependent on the effect of a disabling condition on the care and mobility needs of the individual concerned. It is therefore not at all easy to come up with sensible and reliable figures about what the take-up of the benefit might mean. Also, there are some methodological faults in the studies to which the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) referred.

Means-tested Benefits

Simon Hughes: What the take-up rate of means-tested benefits was in Greater London at the beginning of 2004.

Chris Pond: Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the publication of the latest progress report, which shows that, as at29 February 2004, 245,000 pensioner households in London were receiving pension credit, with an average award of £59. Additionally, at the latest count in August 2003, there were 364,400 non-minimum income guarantee income support claimants, and 133,000 income-based jobseeker's allowance claimants in London. I regret that details of housing benefit and council tax benefit are not available below national level.

Simon Hughes: The figures are useful as far as they go, but I hope that the Minister will also provide the other half of the sets of figures, by which I mean the number of people in Greater London who are not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Given that the Government are now moving towards some sort of conclusion on a form of local taxation that is different from the present one, will the Minister assure the House that his Department is feeding into other Departments the proposal that would make it much easier for people not just to pay a fair contribution towards local tax, but to receive what they are entitled to locally from the state? That matters hugely to people in this city and in the rest of the country.

Chris Pond: Sadly, the hon. Gentleman will not have heard our earlier discussions, as he obviously has a just-in-time approach to oral questions, but we have already discussed issues surrounding the take-up of various benefits. He will know that we are working very hard to ensure that people who need and deserve help—those who are entitled to pension credit, council tax benefit, attendance allowance and other benefits—do get that help. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in that process. On his proposals for reforming council tax, he knows that we are examining its structure to see if a more appropriate means of local taxation is possible. I very much doubt, however, whether it will end up being the Lib-Dem proposal for a form of local income tax.

John Redwood: Is not the complexity of the system one of the reasons why take-up is so disappointing? Given that the Government have extended means-tested benefits so high up the income scale, is it not an administrative absurdity that people have to pay tax with one hand in order to get it back as benefit with the other? Could that not be simplified and made much easier for people—[Interruption.]—in Greater London.

Chris Pond: The right hon. Gentleman may be disappointed, but Government Members are not disappointed. Increasing numbers of people—hundreds, thousands and millions—are getting extra help, whether through the pension credit or new tax credits for families with children. If Conservative Members spoke more to their constituents to find out whether they are disappointed, they would find that most people—certainly with the pension credit, which follows a simple free phone call—are able to discover what they are entitled to. Many hundreds of thousands of them are doing precisely that, and are better off as a result.

Pensions

Barry Sheerman: If he will introduce a fund to compensate those who have lost their pensions as a result of insolvency.

Malcolm Wicks: We do, of course, have an understanding of the position facing workers who have lost pension rights on account of company insolvency. Indeed, my ministerial colleagues and I have met many such workers to discuss problems with them. There are complex arguments on both sides about what action should be taken, and we are giving them serious consideration.

Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the constituency problem that many of us feel poses the greatest injustice is when constituents who may have worked 40 years for a company tell us that they have lost their entire pension entitlement? Sometimes they have worked on in an attempt to save their company from going bust, thus failing to take up their pensions just in time as some of their colleagues have done. Will my hon. Friend talk to his Treasury colleagues? I remember back in 1979—I have been in this place a long time—that the Conservative Government introduced a retrospective tax on bank profits. Would that not be a good way to help finance the 60,000 people who have suffered such a bad deal?

Malcolm Wicks: A number of proposals have been made both by Members and outsiders as to how the position can best be remedied. We are looking seriously at them, but we have to say on this occasion—and repeat the point—that it would be wrong to offer any false hope to those people at this stage. We are examining the circumstances very seriously, as I said. I must add that this is the first Government who have taken action to ensure that those scandals cannot happen in the future. That is why we are legislating now with the Pensions Bill for a pension protection fund, which will bring security to 10 million scheme members and their families. It is a major social advance.

Adam Price: The Secretary of State helpfully announced in an earlier debate that work had been initiated on trying to assess the precise extent of the pension deficit for the 60,000 people facing this problem. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made so far in that assessment and when we can expect an announcement in the House?

Malcolm Wicks: Work is, of course, going on, but all I can say at this stage is that we will bring forward those estimates when we are in a position to do so, which is not today.

Kevin Brennan: Has my hon. Friend looked through the information given over the years to people in final salary occupational pension schemes? Has he ever found any sort of health warning that told people that—as happened to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—they could work in a company for 40 years and that their pensions could be worth nothing at the end of the day? Did their companies, the quangos set up by the Government such as the Financial Services Authority and the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority or the Department for Work and Pensions warn them that that could happen at any stage?

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend, together with other hon. Members on both sides of the House, is a great champion for that group of workers, and I pay tribute to him. I cannot add to what I have said already about the current group of workers, but I emphasise that people who have worked hard all their lives and who have contributed for 30 or 40 years have a right to security, which is why—subject to the will of the House—we will provide security from April next year through the protection fund introduced by the Pensions Bill.

Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister accept that the Pensions Bill will do nothing for the 60,000 people who have already lost their pension rights? Will he accept those people's strong moral claim and the Conservative amendments to the Bill, which are designed to compensate those who have already lost their rights? Following this morning's meeting between Labour Members and the Prime Minister, has that important matter now been taken out of the Minister's hands?

Malcolm Wicks: We are having serious dialogue with concerned Members of Parliament about a serious issue, which, because it is serious, should not be subject to mere partisanship. We are engaged in serious dialogue and will take no lessons from Tory Front Benchers who deliberately advised hon. Members to vote against the Second Reading of the Pensions Bill, which will set up the security for the future that the hon. Gentleman pretends to want now. If he had had his way, the Pensions Bill would not have had a Second Reading.

Frank Field: Since the Minister told the House that we should not hold out false hope to the 60,000 people who have lost their pensions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has briefed the media that he has plans to take some of the unclaimed assets from banks and building societies and use them to finance charitable activity. Will the Minister accept that most hon. Members believe that charity begins at home and that the best way to use those funds at home would be to finance the pensions of those who have lost out owing to their firms winding up schemes.

Malcolm Wicks: With all due respect to the newspaper scribes, I have passed the stage at which I believe everything that I read in the newspapers, whether it is about the Chancellor or any of my hon. Friends. We have obviously examined and considered the proposal championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but I cannot pretend that there are easy answers. At the risk of boring the House, I repeat the point for those who read Hansard or who are watching at home that we must not offer false hope in a complex situation.

Jonathan Djanogly: Last week, I received a delegation from members of the Samuel Jones pension scheme. Some 200 members of that scheme live in St. Neots in my constituency and face the miserable prospect of a no-pension retirement following the insolvency of the company for which they worked and the underfunding of their scheme. Samuel Jones had a particularly long-serving work force, and the losses involved are significant. The Minister is not taking the situation seriously enough. Does he appreciate how young people are being put off investing in pensions because the Government refuse to deal with that type of problem?

Malcolm Wicks: It does not help to suggest that Ministers are not seriously concerned. When I meet groups of workers who are in that situation—I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and the workers affected because I take his question seriously—they talk with quiet dignity about the effect on them. They discuss issues such as the effect on their health, the rotten part-time jobs they have had to take to supplement their incomes and the impact on their families and marriages, and I take the situation seriously.

Child Poverty

George Mudie: How the Government will continue to measure progress towards eradicating child poverty.

Andrew Smith: The blight of child poverty has many aspects, on which the Government report annually in "Opportunity for All". At the heart of poverty is, of course, low income. The new measure of child poverty, which I announced in December, reflects that, combining as it does absolute income, relative low income and material deprivation.

George Mudie: I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government on reaching their ambitious but necessary 2004 targets for cutting child poverty by 25 per cent. I note, however, that the criteria for child poverty have changed, after one consultation, and that three new measures will be introduced. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the change in no way represents a dilution of the Government's targets in this important area of policy?

Andrew Smith: We will not know for some time whether we have met the 2004–05 target, although the prospects are good for doing so on a before-housing cost basis. They are more challenging on the after-housing cost basis. On the substance of my hon. Friend's question, I can assure him that the new measure is every bit as rigorous. As he said, we have consulted extensively on the issue, and there was support for including material deprivation alongside relative and absolute low income, to give a composite measure that truly reflects the experience of poverty. Incidentally, we did not consult only academics: we consulted poor people, including children in poor families.

Andrew Selous: Could the Secretary of State say a little more about his reasons for changing one of the measures from an after-housing cost basis to a before-housing cost basis? In areas such as mine, where housing costs are significant and constitute a large proportion of the family budget, my constituents are interested in how much money they have to spend after their housing costs. Many of us do not understand the change.

Andrew Smith: Subject to the Office for National Statistics, the full range of figures will continue to be published, both on an after-housing cost basis and a before-housing cost basis. The hon. Gentleman, other hon. Members and the public will be able to make a judgment in the round on how well we are achieving the objective. The other important point to make is that the material deprivation component of the new measure will illustrate whether high housing costs are giving people a low after-housing cost income.

Paul Goodman: The Government said in 1998, in their document "Supporting Families":
	"We do share the belief of the majority of people that marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children."
	Is that still the Secretary of State's view and, if so, what role does marriage play in the Government's child poverty measurements?

Andrew Smith: It plays an important role. That remains the Government's view. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the extra resources that the Government are putting into counselling and encouraging people to resolve relationship difficulties in the interests of their children, he might find that we are at one on the matter.

Employment Initiatives

Anthony D Wright: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of initiatives to get people to move from temporary to permanent employment since 1997.

Maria Eagle: Since 1997, the number of people in permanent jobs has risen by nearly 2 million while the number of people in temporary jobs has fallen by 250,000. Temporary work as a share of total employment in the UK is the lowest of the major EU economies, at around 6 per cent. compared with, for example, 13 per cent. in Germany, 15 per cent. in France and more than 30 per cent. in Spain. That achievement provides further clear evidence of the success of the Government's labour market policies, built on the principles of creating a framework of macro-economic stability; designing legislation to protect the vulnerable and disadvantaged; ensuring that work pays through the national minimum wage and tax credits; creating an adaptable productive workforce with the skills employers need; and encouraging and supporting economic activity.

Anthony D Wright: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that response. I congratulate the Government on the initiatives that have certainly decreased unemployment levels in my constituency of Great Yarmouth. Long-term youth unemployment has fallen by 75 per cent. since 1997. However, one of the feeder sectors for employment are the training providers, and the great concern at present is that the initial success is gradually fading away. We need more encouragement for employers, who have been marvellous in bringing forward some of these initiatives.
	Would my hon. Friend offer some comfort by telling us whether further initiatives might be set up to encourage employers to participate in both training and the new deal programme that has already been so successful?

Maria Eagle: I congratulate my hon. Friend, who is well known for the efforts he makes to reduce unemployment rates in his constituency and for the interest that he takes in the matter. It is true that although there has been a massive fall in long-term youth unemployment in his constituency, there is still a problem in the area. I hope that the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus in his constituency, which has taken place over the last year, will mean a better and more sensitive engagement with local employers to ensure that they are properly matched with local young people who want jobs, so that employers have staff with the skills they need and the remaining unemployment problem in my hon. Friend's constituency can be dealt with further.

David Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a particular problem for those who go back to work after suffering a bout of mental illness? Is my hon. Friend likely to reconsider the relationship between the therapeutic earning rules, part-time paid work and the eventual move to a permanent wage, so that if things go wrong at any stage, people will not completely drop off the face of the earth but can come back into work? Will my hon. Friend consider that?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend refers to the permitted work rules under incapacity benefit. I can assure him and other Members, who have written to me on the subject in some numbers, that we are evaluating the impact of those rules and will be considering whether they have achieved what we hoped for when we changed them. There is no doubt that we shall be looking into whether more can be done, so I hope that will assist the people to whom my hon. Friend referred.

Retirement

Jim Cunningham: What plans he has to help people make informed choices about their retirement.

Malcolm Wicks: Last month, we set out the Government's strategy for informed choice. I mentioned earlier the importance of combined pension forecasts, another aspect of which is to maximise membership of existing schemes. It is particularly sad when workers have the right to join occupational schemes but do not make use of their right. We are thus exploring options for that, including auto-enrolment, active decision making and a commitment to save.

Jim Cunningham: I noticed that, as part of my hon. Friend's proposals, he intends to use the national curriculum. Can he tell us how that will work?

Malcolm Wicks: Obviously, I could do so in great detail. Drawing on my knowledge as a former Minister for Lifelong Learning, I am aware of the importance of citizenship as an aspect of what is known as personal, social and health education. In the teaching of mathematics we should do our best, without over-egging the pudding—we shall not turn every 14-year-old into a pension expert; otherwise I should ask them to join the Conservatives—to raise concerns about financial literacy and the importance of saving.

Annabelle Ewing: Surely, to enable people to make informed choices, the Government must spell out in greater detail the impact of their massive extension of means-testing. For example, I am sure it is not well known that the already miserly 25p allowance for the over-80s is—astonishingly—subject to means-testing in relation to the pension credit. We need more information about those astonishing and shameful positions adopted by new Labour.

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Lady just has not got it, has she? Why draw on the history books to talk about 25p? Why not use this opportunity to inform her constituents about the importance of the extra £100 for all Scots in households where someone is over the age of 80? In fairness, the hon. Lady should present a balanced picture. What we are doing on pension credit, winter fuel payments and television licences is of great benefit to hard pressed people in Scotland—and in England and Wales, too.

Barbara Follett: What measures is my hon. Friend taking to maximise the financial literacy of carers—especially women carers—to inform them about the benefits of the state second pension?

Malcolm Wicks: For several decades, home responsibilities for young children, for example, have been recognised. We are now making advances for carers. It cannot be right that people who might have to give up work completely to do the job of being a carer—where would we be without the army of carers?—may face as a consequence, not a reward, the possibility of poverty in their own old age. The state second pension, which will benefit some 20 million people in total, and especially those on low pay, will be of particular benefit to an estimated 2.5 million carers. Carers need more rights. We have done a lot as a Government, but perhaps we need to do more. However, the state second pension is a major development.

Sydney Chapman: I speak as a person who defines youth as anybody who is younger than a year older than I happen to be, but who recognises that time is racing ever faster. Do the Government intend to give help and advice to those of us who are voluntarily not seeking re-election about informed choices on retirement? If they do, may I suggest that it would be helpful to have confirmation that the next election will be held on Thursday 5 May next year?

Malcolm Wicks: I have been told the date, but I have not brought my diary with me, so I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot believe that he is even thinking of retiring. I urge him to be age positive, to have an active old age and to take part in voluntary activity—the local Labour party always needs some help.

Vera Baird: I highly commend the efforts that are currently being made to help people to make informed choices, but does my hon. Friend share any of my concerns about a group of married women who assert that they were unable to make informed choices when they moved on to the small stamp many years ago? They say that their husbands encouraged them to think that they could always rely on their stamp, and that they were encouraged by bosses to think that that was right. The money that they paid out then was wasted, and of course they would need it for their day-to-day outgoings. Does my hon. Friend have some sympathy for, and any proposals to help, women who find themselves in a bad way on pensions because of that lack of information?

Malcolm Wicks: If there is any evidence that people were deliberately misled and did not sign the form, we will examine individual cases. The women who signed up to pay the married woman's stamp, as it was then called, now feel a sense of grievance. However, if we took action on that, I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider what other married women who also write to me would say. They did not have that money in the purse or the pocket, but they paid the married woman's stamp, so there are difficulties. Many of our policies are designed to address the impact on hard pressed women in old age, which is why the state second pension will be important for a new generation and why pension credit is important now. The credit goes to the older elderly, and two out of three people to whom it goes are women, because of the inequalities that they faced during their working lives.

Incapacity Benefit

Jim Marshall: If he will make a statement on helping people on incapacity benefit to get back to work.

Maria Eagle: Tackling jobseeker's allowance unemployment had to be our first priority in 1997, but we have already gone further than any previous Government to give people on incapacity benefits help to move into work. That said, inactivity remains our greatest challenge. As part of our welfare to work strategy, we are piloting pathways to work, a groundbreaking approach that gives people on incapacity benefit access to a comprehensive range of work-focused support, rehabilitation and financial incentives. The scheme is already generating encouraging feedback and will be extended to a further four districts next month.

Jim Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for that full response. Does she agree that the positive policies that she has outlined to the House today are in stark contrast to the policies pursued by previous Tory Administrations who, in effect, used incapacity benefit as a means of fiddling the unemployment figures? As a consequence, the number of people claiming incapacity benefit increased threefold between 1979 and 1997.

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is exactly right: there was a 300 per cent. increase during the Conservatives' tenure of office—not that I would seek to make party political points on such an occasion.
	The number of people coming on to incapacity benefit has fallen by a third since 1997. At the same time, the number of people in jobs has increased by 1.7 million and 700,000 people have left the unemployment register. Any Government would be proud of that record. We are starting to put right the mess that the Conservatives made when they were in office.

George Foulkes: I was tempted to speak on the previous question, but like the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), I would have had to declare an interest. This question is more appropriate, but I have been pre-empted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who made the sort of Tory-bashing attack that I really enjoy, so instead I will have to ask—[Hon. Members: "A question."] Indeed.
	Many people in my constituency are on incapacity benefit. They are principally retired miners who have got out of the habit and routine of work. Does my hon. Friend agree that the pathways to work project needs to give them financial incentives and the self-confidence and self-belief that they can do something so that they get back into work? What can she do to achieve that?

Maria Eagle: I always enjoy listening to my right hon. Friend, whether he is asking me a question, bashing Tories or whatever. He is exactly right that one problem of long-term incapacity is a lack of confidence. In that regard, I am very encouraged to hear individual stories of people's experiences, which at this stage are anecdotal because it is too early to evaluate pathways to work. For example, a lady in south Wales who was on incapacity benefit for 25 years has just gone back to work as a result of pathways. Such stories give us hope that there can be a breakthrough and assist those on incapacity benefit, many of whom want to work, to get back into the labour market.

Economic Inactivity

Bob Spink: If he will make a statement on the level of economic inactivity in the economy.

Maria Eagle: Since 1997, the general growth in employment for the most disadvantaged groups has been greater than the growth in overall employment. There are now 170,000 fewer inactive lone parents since May 1997, and since that time the number of people moving on to incapacity-related benefits has declined.
	We still have more to do. The employment rate for sick and disabled people remains significantly below that of the overall working population. That is our next challenge. Our strategy will continue to focus on the principles that have delivered so much labour market success. We will continue to make work pay and continue to put more inactive people in touch with the labour market through our new pathways to work pilot, which the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear will be extended to cover his constituency next month.

Bob Spink: That is all well and good, but the hon. Lady has not addressed the problem of young people. Is she not aware that more than 1 million young people are not working, training or studying? Does that not show that the new deal is failing?

Maria Eagle: I am very much afraid that the hon. Gentleman has disappointed me. I thought he was going to say that he was pleased that youth unemployment in his constituency is down by 68 per cent., that unemployment is down by 70 per cent., that long-term youth unemployment is down by 88 per cent., and that long-term unemployment in general is down by 92 per cent. He must have got out on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Chris Bryant: One cause of economic inactivity throughout the country is the significant increase over the past 10 years of the number people going on to incapacity benefit owing to emotional stress, depression and psychiatric illness. Will the Government put together a specific project to get more of those people into work, many of whom would desperately love to work if they possibly could?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right. Stress, mental illness and behavioural difficulties form one of the big three main disabling conditions of those who come on to incapacity benefit. In that respect, some of the rehabilitation and condition management programmes that are piloted in pathways to work concentrate on that group of people. It is too soon for me to say whether those intervention programmes will work, but I can say that for the first time in this country we are addressing that problem. We hope to develop programmes that will really tackle that difficulty and enable that group of people, who for far too long have been abandoned to benefits for ever, to get back into work, which is what most of them want to do.

Employment Policies

Karen Buck: What assessment he has made of the contribution of his Department's policies towards increasing levels of employment.

Chris Pond: As a result of both economic stability and our radical reform of labour market policies, 1.7 million more people are in work than in spring 1997—almost exactly the number of jobs that Opposition Members warned would be destroyed if we introduced the national minimum wage, a further increase in the level of which was announced today. Our tax and benefit policies now ensure that work pays. Through Jobcentre Plus, active labour market support has helped individuals move into work, especially through the new deal, which has helped lone parents, the young and long-term unemployed, the disabled and the over-50s move off benefit. That has benefited the economy to the tune of £500 million a year.

Karen Buck: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The Government deserve great credit for the success of those policies. However, is he aware that unemployment in London has fallen less than it has across the economy as a whole? Indeed, there are now more unemployed people in London than in Scotland and Wales put together. Despite very strong employment growth, there is still a mismatch in the labour market, so many London unemployed are locked out.
	In view of the report of the analytical study of London that the Government are due to consider in the near future, will my hon. Friend assure me that his Department is putting considerable effort into finding ways to ensure that the London unemployed are able to fill London jobs, and that we tackle the two big cost barriers of housing and child care, which are locking them out of such jobs?

Chris Pond: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. She has worked hard to ensure that she can help people in her constituency as well as in London as a whole to find the rewarding and quality employment that all of us on the Government Benches want. We do not underestimate the challenges that we face in getting people in London and throughout the country into work, but through measures such as the new deal, work-search pilots, in-work credit, the lone parent job grants—they will come into effect in October—our changes in housing benefit administration to make sure that we get people smoothly off benefit and into work, and the national child care strategy, we are meeting those challenges.

Peter Luff: In a spirit of constructive opposition, may I say to the Minister that one of his Department's policies that I welcome is the creation of Jobcentre Plus facilities? One of those was promised in Droitwich Spa in my constituency, but is he aware that as a result of a decision by the Department of Health to withdraw funding for the proposed health centre, which was to be part of a one-stop service incorporating such facilities plus police and local council services, the Jobcentre Plus facilities are threatened? I urge him to make representations to his colleagues in the Department of Health in order to save a very important facility for my constituents.

Chris Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach and his welcome for Jobcentre Plus, which, by bringing together the Employment Service and the benefits service, is providing, especially through the role of personal advisers, a tailored service to help ensure that people know not only about job opportunities and training but about the availability of child care and other support that they might need to get into work. That is contributing greatly to continuing the drive to moving people into employment. I shall certainly be happy to discuss further with him the role of the Department of Health, to get further details, and if appropriate to discuss it with colleagues in the Department of Health.

Pension Credit

Linda Gilroy: How many people in Plymouth, Sutton are in receipt of pension credit.

Malcolm Wicks: I know from my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency that she is an energetic champion of elderly people in Plymouth. At the end of February, 4,245 pensioner households in Plymouth, Sutton, comprising 4,875 individuals, were in receipt of pension credit, with an average award of just over £41. Our take-up campaign is continuing at a local and national level. The Plymouth local service, which will be at the guildhall on 25 March, is playing a major role in that drive.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. For years, my constituents have been saying to me that they have saved for their retirement to no effect. It is important that the work and pension service, which is doing such a good job, as he says, should provide such help. Will he encourage it to work in partnership with other agencies, particularly Plymouth city council, which has just launched a "Tell Granny" campaign on council tax benefit take-up? Many more who receive pension credit will now qualify for council tax benefit.

Malcolm Wicks: I thank the city council for its work. The senior citizens forum in Plymouth is also playing a major role by directly contacting its 9,000-strong customer base. That shows the importance of working with partners such as Age Concern and other organisations to drum home the message that pension credit is a success. I should add that, as part of the drive against sexism, we ought to tell Grandad as well.

Orders of the Day

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
	Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Fire and Rescue Services Bill

As amended in Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Fire And Rescue National Framework—Scrutiny

'(1) The Framework referred to in section 21 as first prepared shall not have effect until an order providing that it shall have effect for the purposes of section 21 has been made by the Secretary of State.
	(2) Any revisions to the Framework which the Secretary of State wishes to make shall not have effect until an order providing that they shall have effect as amendments to the Framework has been made by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 3—Intervention Code—
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a Code specifying the circumstances and the manner in which:
	(a) he may make an order under section 22; or
	(b) he may issue a direction under any provision of this Act.
	(2) The Code shall include, in particular, details of:
	(a) the persons or classes of person the Secretary of State will consult before taking the action referred to in subsection (1);
	(b) any other codes of conduct or agreements with any other persons or bodies to which the Secretary of State will have regard when contemplating any action referred to in subsection (1).
	(3) Before publishing the Code referred to in subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult—
	(a) all fire and rescue authorities or persons confirmed by them as representing them; and
	(b) all persons or bodies recognised by any fire and rescue authority as representing any group of its employees; and
	(c) any other persons he considers appropriate.'.
	New clause 11—Setting of fire, death and arson targets and reporting on performance—
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall for each Fire and Rescue Authority set a target for—
	(a) the reduction in the number of accidental fire deaths in the home; and
	(b) the reduction in the number of deliberate fires.
	(2) The targets referred to in subsection (1) shall be published annually by the Secretary of State for a period of five years forward.
	(3) The Secretary of State shall place before parliament at least once in every session a report specifying—
	(a) the targets under subsection (1)(a) and (1)(b);
	(b) any changes to those targets since the previous report and the reasons for those changes;
	(c) measures taken or being taken to achieve the targets set out in subsection (1)(a) and (1)(b); and
	(d) the Secretary of State's assessment of progress towards achieving those targets.'.
	Amendment No. 20, in clause 21, page 10, line 8, after 'functions', insert
	'the decision on which cannot be reasonably devolved to a fire and rescue authority.'.
	Amendment No. 17, in page 10 line 9, leave out subsection (b) and insert—
	'(b) must set out minimum standards of response to specified categories of incidents from fire and rescue authorities in connection with the discharge of their functions under sections 7, 8, 9.'.
	Amendment No. 1, in page 10, line 30, leave out subsection (6).

Philip Hammond: New clause 1 deals with issues surrounding the fire and rescue national framework—a detailed document, which sets out what amounts to a blueprint for the organisation, operation and management of fire and rescue services across the country. Let me give hon. Members a flavour of the document. It states:
	"by 1 April 2004 Fire and Rescue Authorities must establish Regional Management Boards with . . . delegated powers that are appropriate to"
	their
	"aims and objectives; plans for meeting the requirements in each of the six key areas listed at paragraph 2.9 of this document; and sufficient evidence to demonstrate the capacity—both resources and expertise—to deliver those plans."
	In turn, regional management boards must
	"introduce regional personnel and human resource functions . . . develop a regional approach to training . . . establish regional control rooms . . . and introduce regional procurement"
	strategies. Later, the document states that
	"Fire and Rescue Authorities, through the Regional Management Boards, must: ensure the phased transition from existing control rooms"
	and ensure compliance
	"with national protocols on staff roles and training"—
	whatever they are. In short, the framework document tells fire and rescue authorities how to organise the discharge of the functions conferred on them by the Bill. It sets out what they are and are not allowed to do, when and how they are required to devolve their functions upward to higher bodies, and the guidance that they should accept from Secretaries of State. The document even lays down detailed human resources policies and strips several functions from the democratically accountable authorities, transferring them up to the regional management board.
	For the purposes of this debate, it is not necessary to argue whether having some sort of framework to deal with such matters is right or wrong. The concern that new clause 1 is designed to address is the democratic deficit—the lack of scrutiny of the framework document, which in many ways is meatier than the Bill itself. The framework is given statutory status by virtue of clause 21, and clauses 22 and 23 create a regime whereby the Secretary of State can intervene and penalise authorities if they do not comply with its requirements. The framework is extraordinarily centralising, and it will come into force without having undergone any proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State determines what is in the framework, he issues the framework—after consultation, of course—and he can amend it at any time that he feels it is appropriate to do so.
	Without making any comment at this stage about the precise content of the framework, I should explain that the purpose of new clause 1 is to subject the framework to parliamentary approval. Under the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State has only to lay the finished document before Parliament, whereas new clause 1(1) provides that the initial framework shall have effect only once the Secretary of State has made an order by statutory instrument, giving Parliament an opportunity—albeit an inadequate one—to exercise some measure of scrutiny over what, as I have already suggested, will be by far the most important part of the collection of documents that will determine the way that our fire and rescue services operate in future: a document that will be at least of equal standing to the Bill itself.
	Subsection (2) provides for similar arrangements in the case of any amendments to the framework that the Secretary of State may wish to make. Amendment No. 1 is a consequential provision that would remove from clause 21 the current provision for laying the framework before Parliament.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to accede to our request for a simple measure of parliamentary scrutiny of what will be an extremely important document. If, as he repeatedly assured us in Committee, the framework will not amount to a micro-management plan for every nominally independent fire and rescue authority, he has nothing to fear from allowing parliamentarians—who represent the populations of communities throughout the country—an opportunity to consider the framework in its final form after he has completed his consultation, and to approve it so that it is incorporated in statute via the provisions of clause 21.
	New clause 3 addresses a slightly different issue. It is designed to qualify the Secretary of State's power to intervene in the operation of a fire and rescue authority under the powers granted to him in clause 22. Under that clause, the Secretary of State may direct a fire and rescue authority precisely how to act or not to act if he believes that it is failing or likely to fail—not failing or likely fail to discharge its statutory functions but failing or likely to fail to comply with the national fire and rescue framework.
	These are intervention powers that are over and above the sanctions under the best-value regime enshrined in the Local Government Act 1999, which also apply to fire and rescue authorities by virtue of clause 23. As drafted, these are wide-ranging powers of intervention. In our view, the ability to intervene gives the Secretary of State far too much power vis-à-vis what are supposed to be local community-based services that are delivering a service that is accountable to the local community.
	New clause 3 simply requires the Secretary of State to provide some codification of the circumstances and the manner in which he will make orders under clause 22, and the circumstances and the manner in which he will issue directions under any of the many provisions allowing him to do so in a Bill that places huge powers in his hands.
	Subsection (2) requires the Secretary of State to specify who he will consult. It does not require him to provide an exhaustive list of individuals or organisations. In Committee, the Minister made clear his objection to the listing approach. The subsection requires the Secretary of State instead to define the classes of persons, and critically to specify any other codes or agreements to which he will have regard before intervening.
	It is no secret—I am sure the Minister will readily have divined the intention—that I have in mind the Local Government Association's code on intervention. It is a code that was agreed between the LGA and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, defining how the Secretary of State will use his intervention powers after a comprehensive performance assessment where an authority is deemed to be failing. The code includes extensive provisions on support for failing organisations, notice to be given and opportunities for authorities to rectify their deficiencies. Generally, it governs the Secretary of State's approach and ensures that intervention follows a clear scheme that everybody understands and is not arbitrary in any way. I should be grateful for assurance that the regime, which will apply to interventions under clause 23, which deals with best value, will also apply to interventions under clause 22. A loophole will otherwise be created, as the Secretary of State will invariably have the opportunity to intervene under either clause, and it is not appropriate that one intervention route is bound by the provisions of the LGA code and the other is not.
	Finally, new clause 3(3) specifies the authorities and recognised organisations representing employees who must be consulted on the code before it is issued by the Secretary of State.
	The new clause proposes a modest limitation on a wide power of intervention, and seeks to ensure that it is used as expected by fire and rescue authorities, is not arbitrary and does not become an alternative or loophole for avoiding established intervention procedures. If the Minister can confirm that the LGA code will be applied to any intervention under the provisions of the Bill, we will not seek to press new clause 3 further—[Interruption.] He is saying from a sedentary position that he has already done so, but that had not penetrated my consciousness. He will be glad of an opportunity to put that on record on the Floor of the House so that all local government bodies are aware of it.
	New clause 11 requires that, as part of the framework arrangements, the Secretary of State set out annually, on a five-year forward basis, targets for a reduction in the number of accidental fire deaths in the home and of incidents of arson. It requires him to report to Parliament annually on progress in achieving those targets, which is not a terribly onerous burden. After all, the Government have said that reducing accidental fire deaths is the raison d'être of modernisation, so surely they will not object to putting that objective at the centre of the framework structure with clear targets that are updated regularly, thus enabling them to measure the progress of the reforms. The problem is that the Government have reduced the targets. Until last summer the target for the reduction of accidental fire deaths in the home was a cut in the average for 1994 to 1999 of 20 per cent. by March 2004. Gosh, March 2004 is now! The reduction should have been achieved already, but last summer, the Government put the date for the achievement of that important target back by six years, to March 2010. While they have been telling us that modernisation will save lives, and while fire authorities, required to reconfigure their deployments under integrated risk management plans, have closed fire stations, changed manning and crewing arrangements or, as in the case of my own constituency, removed fire appliances from fire stations, and have been busy with their integrated risk management plans, the Government have demonstrated a lack of confidence in the saving lives agenda by reducing the targets for accidental fire deaths in the home.
	I should like to quote from the report of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published in January. With regard to downgrading, it states:
	"we are disappointed that the Government has relaxed its target to cut down the number of deliberate fires and extended the time available to meet the targets on accidental fire-related deaths. We are concerned that Government did not consult sufficiently with relevant parties before relaxing targets."
	It is hardly surprising that the public are increasingly sceptical about the integrated risk management plan cuts that are beginning to filter through locally—they are certainly beginning to do so in my area—when the Government are simultaneously downgrading the very target whose fulfilment is the justification for much of the modernisation programme. The foreword to the framework document, which is signed by the Minister for Local and Regional Government, talks of
	"a better service that saves more lives".
	Whether the service saves more lives depends on the base line, however, and the Government have simply moved the goalposts—[Interruption.] The Government have moved the goalposts over the past 12 months by downgrading the target for reducing accidental fire deaths in the home.

Nick Raynsford: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he has misled the House in suggesting that a change in the actual targets—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should perhaps rephrase his remarks. I do not think that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) would mislead the House.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to reducing fire deaths. The fact that there may be a change in the target does not in any way change the commitment to a reduction in the number of deaths, and neither does it indicate that there will be no change or reduction. A change has been made in the light of circumstances which, as he knows only too well, could not have been foreseen when the target was set. That is the result of the collapse in the scrap metal price, which we debated at length. He knows perfectly well that that is the case. Will he accept that, if a target becomes ineffective because of outside circumstances, sticking to it rather than realistically trying to ensure an appropriate response in the changed circumstances is folly? I hope that he will accept that we are doing the most sensible thing.

Philip Hammond: The Minister referred to the reduced target for deliberate fires or arson, but he has ignored the reduced target for accidental fire deaths in the home. If he would like to explain to the House what unforeseen circumstances have made that target impossible to achieve, I would be very happy to give way to him again. The only suggestion that I have heard from him is that an increasingly elderly population has made it difficult to achieve the targets. I hardly think that that circumstance was impossible to foresee at the time when the targets were set.
	I will accept what he says about the arson targets and scrap metal, although I shall have something else to say about them in a moment, but in relation to accidental fire deaths in the home, the Government have reduced the target. [Interruption.] In my book, it is a reduction in the target; other hon. Members will draw their own conclusions. The target of achieving a 20 per cent. reduction from a given base line by March 2004 has been pushed out to a target of achieving the same reduction from the same base line by March 2010. To my very simple mind, that is a reduction in the target—

Nick Raynsford: It is an extension.

Philip Hammond: I shall leave other hon. Members and members of the public to reach their own conclusions.
	On the reduction in arson targets, as the Minister rightly says, the number of vehicles being subjected to deliberately set fires has increased dramatically, partly as a result of a collapse of the scrap metal market and the cost now involved in disposing of vehicles. What are the Government proposing to do about that, apart from downgrading the targets? They are proposing a methodology for the implementation of the EU end-of-life vehicle directive that will by general consent make the problem worse by creating an additional disincentive to the owners of old vehicles to take them to authorised dismantlers.
	The Minister of State clearly disagrees, but I had lengthy debates on this in a previous incarnation with a then Industry Minister, and I would be fascinated to hear how the current proposals for implementing the directive will not lead to an increase in the number of abandoned vehicles deliberately set on fire.

Nick Raynsford: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how free disposal of end-of-life vehicles from 2007 will not have the effect that he wishes. We think it will.

Philip Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman misrepresents what the Government are proposing. There will be a gap during which people with existing vehicles will be required to take them to an authorised dismantler, who at current scrap metal prices is likely to charge a fee.
	The Government's performance on targets has been rather shabby. The dropping of the fire deaths target undermines the high moral stance that Ministers have sought to attach to the modernisation programme, and reinforces an already sceptical public in the suspicion that modernisation is a cover for some old-fashioned cuts. Frankly, that suggests to us that the setting, monitoring and performance in achievement of the targets must be watched closely. That is why new clause 11 would force the Government regularly to publish, update and explain any changes to the targets, and to give Parliament an assessment of progress in achieving them. That would allow us to measure the real impact of modernisation on these important public safety objectives.
	Amendment No. 20 would limit the guidance that the Secretary of State can give in the framework—guidance allowing the Secretary of State to intervene under clause 22 if there is a failure to act in accordance with it—to areas in which decisions could not reasonably be left to fire and rescue authorities. We concur with the sentiments behind that amendment. We see a real danger that the Government's instinct to try to micro-manage from the centre will find expression through the national framework. That is one of our two principal concerns about the shape of the Bill as it stands.
	Through amendment No. 17, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) seeks to include a requirement for a specified minimum standard of response to specified categories of incident. I will be interested to hear what he intends, because it seems to us that the amendment would undermine the local discretion that the integrated risk management plan process is intended to introduce for local authorities. I will also be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that, on the new clauses, and in particular on the Government's reduced targets.

John McDonnell: I want to speak about amendment No. 17, which I tabled specifically to allow the Minister to elaborate on some of the questions that have just been posed and thus overcome some of the arguments that have been advanced in previous debates to the effect that the exercise is simply about cuts to service. It is important to clarify exactly how the new system of integrated risk management proposals will be implemented.
	We should celebrate the work that has already been done. In March, we celebrated another 5 per cent. reduction in fatalities in the past year. We should congratulate the service on that. I tabled the amendment because of the dilemma that runs not only through our debates but through the Select Committee report—a dilemma in relation to the need to ensure some consistency in standards throughout the country. The amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to negate the contention that the new system may introduce flexibility to the extent of creating a postcode lottery in local fire services' response to specific incidents.
	In moving away from the traditional national minimum standards system, we need clarity about local discretion. Of course, everyone—including the fire authorities and the Fire Brigades Union—has argued that we need to tailor the modern service response to specific needs. However, there are anxieties. We need to put on record again the fact that we are not considering an overall reduction in investment in the service or a cuts exercise for any individual fire authority. We are considering a long-term, consistent pattern of investment that will improve service provision and the resources on which individual firefighters and authorities can draw.

Philip Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, during the industrial dispute in 2002 and early 2003, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister both said that the firefighters' pay settlement over and above inflation had to be self-financing out of the savings from modernisation? Does that not suggest that it will be difficult to achieve the objective that he has outlined?

John McDonnell: I do recall that, but I also remember the subsequent debate in which the Government identified a sum of money for transitional investment in the fire service to cover the interim period when the savings could be identified. I am confident that, if the new system is implemented properly, we can overcome the allegations that it is a cuts exercise. I seek clear reassurance, on the record, from the Minister that we are considering increasing not reducing investment.
	How far will the integrated risk management plans go to establish a consistent approach throughout the country? If we are moving from minimum standards, how can we achieve consistency of approach? I would welcome the Minister's elaborating on that today so that the Government's intentions can be put on record. I would welcome in particular an outline of what happens if inconsistencies break out in individual fire authorities. What powers of intervention would the Minister have if he believed that a specific fire authority's inconsistent approach would increase risk?
	I am anxious about some of the statements that have been made about local approaches, especially responses to automatic fire alarms. How will individual fire authorities identify the level of risk and therefore the appropriate response? Some fire authorities have made statements that have not helped the argument for the need for a flexible approach. For example, the firemaster, as he is called, for Lothian and the borders said:
	"Where we get a call from an automatic detector which isn't confirmed by someone as being a fire, we intend to send out one fire engine instead of the two to four we send at the moment."
	There has been some suggestion that authorities will invite the general public to investigate whether a fire is associated with an automatic fire alarm. Clearly, that is unacceptable. We need clearer national guidance to ensure that such an inconsistent approach does not break out. It is estimated that there are 1,500 calls through automatic fire alarms when, although it is not confirmed, there is a fire. Clearer guidance on minimum standards would help.
	How will the integrated risk management ensure consistency? How will the Minister's national guidance and national framework ensure that we do not take a step backwards leading to increased risk or a need for more investment in local provision? What powers of intervention will he have if an inconsistent approach is shown to be putting lives at risk and reducing resources?
	I should like to hear from the Minister yet again that this is not a cutting exercise, and that it involves investment and flexibility. I should also like to hear about any consultation on initiatives to measure the need for response. Will it be possible for some to be piloted, so that fire authorities can learn from others what response is most appropriate, what lessons can be learned from a change from existing minimum standards to a more flexible approach, and how mistakes can be identified and rectified. I want to hear the Minister's comments on the overall approach, so that we can reassure individual firefighters in our communities that the Bill will result in a general improvement rather than a reduction in services.

Richard Younger-Ross: Two themes ran through the Committee stage—lack of scrutiny and centralisation of power. Our amendments and those of the Conservatives tried to deal with both. I compliment the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who clearly worked hard on the amendments tabled in Committee and on those we shall discuss today. We support in principle his new clauses in this group, and some that we shall deal with later—although, as he would probably expect, I shall ask him a couple of questions about one of them.
	A national framework always has potential for good and potential for bad, or for unintended consequences. The same applies to powers taken by the Secretary of State, and we want to ensure that these powers are used only to improve fire services and to increase local accountability and democracy. In Committee, the Minister would smile angelically and tell us that, of course, he had no intention of misusing the powers; they were there "just in case". If that is true, I do not think he should have too much difficulty in accepting some of the Conservative amendments, or accepting the principles enshrined in our amendments to clause 20.
	New clause 1 confers a level of scrutiny that, in our view, is missing from the Bill. It demands a statutory instrument enabling consideration of various clauses and, in particular, amendments to the framework. I disagreed slightly with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge when he said that a statutory instrument was the weakest of options, although I know that they are not the best way of testing the Government. I do not know whether he was implying that all these matters should be dealt with on the Floor of the House; certainly, debating all the regulations here would take up rather a lot of time. With that proviso, however, I am happy to support what he said about new clause 1.
	In a sense, new clause 3 tackles the same issue that we are tackling through amendment No. 20: constraining the Secretary of State's powers by establishing codes. My only concern, which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge probably shares, is that although we might be able to scrutinise those codes, the Minister will ultimately be able to set them as he wishes. An element of trust is involved, and I would like to go a little further, so I was pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman supports our amendment.
	I turn to new clause 11. Targets are like shifting sands: they are there one minute, and then they are not. The Minister seemed to protest a little too much about the extension of a target date. If one expects a target to end on a set date, it ought to be possible to review it to see whether a tougher one can be fixed, or whether one has gone as far as possible. Extending the target date by several years clearly stops the review process, thereby reducing one's ability to set a lower target.

Philip Hammond: The original target defined a maximum number of fire deaths in the coming year—beginning in March 2004—that would meet the target. But because of the change, a higher number of fire deaths will still meet the target, as that figure does not have to be achieved until 2010. Is that not the problem?

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point, and I need not comment further.
	The targets set by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge are somewhat broad, and we should remember that targets do get adjusted. I have been informed that the target for death by fire has been tweaked slightly to remove death resulting from arson; perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is so. The removal of arson attacks would automatically lead to a reduction in fire deaths, because the target would have been shifted slightly. Such information will doubtless be winging its way to the Minister very shortly.

Philip Hammond: Is not the point the use of the word "accidental"? We are talking about a target for accidental fire deaths in the home, so it does not include deaths by deliberately set fires. However, to be fair it never has.

Richard Younger-Ross: My understanding was different, but I am happy to be corrected. Targets have been adjusted slightly in other cases. My concern is that we could become too wrapped up in targets, although having a certain number is a good thing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain why he chose these targets in preference to other, slightly more prescriptive ones.
	Amendment No. 20 is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). In our view, decisions should be taken at a local level where that can reasonably be done. We must have trust in fire and rescue authorities that have been democratically elected; otherwise, we will undermine them, and the fact of their election will become pointless. As a result, they will become managers rather than decision makers. We welcome the national framework in principle, but certain decisions must be taken locally. The Minister could achieve that in a number of ways, but I hope that he accepts the broad principle that the elected members of fire and rescue authorities should have decision-making powers, rather than simply managerial ones, and that he will ensure that that happens.

David Drew: I shall be brief because I took part in the Committee stage, which gave us plenty of opportunities to discuss how integrated risk management plans would function. I have just a couple of points, which relate to how Gloucestershire fire authority envisages its way forward and, more particularly, how local firefighters, through the Fire Brigades Union, are seeking to move the debate forward.
	One issue is how IRMPs will fit with other aspects of evolving county and wider arrangements. In particular, we have the community safety plan in Gloucestershire, which is quite an extensive attempt by the county council to draw together different services working in the emergency field. I should be interested to know how my right hon. Friend the Minister envisages the plans working, at least in the short term. The view seems to be that where there have been pathfinder projects, services are further forward than in some other areas, such as Gloucestershire, where there has not been such an opportunity. I should be interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say on that. How do we move those brigades forward?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman says that Gloucestershire has not had the opportunity of pathfinder projects, but it has pioneered the use of tri-service control facilities. How does he understand their fitting into the Government's stated agenda of reducing the number of control rooms throughout England to only nine?

David Drew: We rehearsed that point in Committee, if somewhat vaguely, and I am sure that we shall come to it in the next-but-one group of amendments. We in the county of Gloucestershire have some misgivings because a fine service has evolved there, and it is good to see the three emergency services working together. It is fair to say that we are talking to our right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench about the opportunities for what that tri-service may become, but we will no doubt refer to that under the appropriate group of amendments.
	To return to the immediate group, I should be interested to hear from the Minister how areas where there have not been the same opportunities for trialling and testing the new procedures can catch up, and how those procedures will fit with other proposals that have emerged through county councils and other parts of the emergency services. How will those sit together with the new set of IRMPs? Much of that is outwith the Bill's scope, because practical, detailed considerations are involved. However, the Government need to show good faith and that there is not a cuts package behind the proposals, and they need to demonstrate how they will modernise services, using the best forms of consultation to ensure that all elements are involved.

Adrian Flook: I take issue with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who said that he had much time in Committee to make contributions on this matter. When we came to discuss clause 21, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said:
	"we need to make rapid progress to consider the next four clauses before the knife falls at 6 o'clock".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 24 February 2004; c. 231.]
	As that was at 5 o'clock, we did not have quite the necessary time to discuss the issues involved, particularly those relating to new clauses 1 and 3. The House may appreciate the brevity of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stroud, but they could have been longer, because the Committee felt at that point that we were not scrutinising the matter closely enough.

Nick Raynsford: Nonsense.

Adrian Flook: The Minister may call that nonsense, but I have here the comment made in Committee on 24 February, clear as the light of day.

Nick Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the comments of his Front-Bench colleague at the end of the Committee about the adequacy of time for full consideration of the Bill?

Adrian Flook: I might well be able to, if I had those comments in front of me. None the less, the point about scrutiny is as plain as the light of day at column 231.
	Three fears are particularly relevant to new clause 1. The first is that the national framework is too rigid and will undermine localness. Secondly, there is a fear of gold-plating. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) said that the Minister had described this as a just-in-case set-up. I can see exactly what will happen in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It will take on board more and more responsibilities, and the document will become a gold-plated version that undermines localness. Thirdly, the entire emphasis of the national framework involves the ultimate aim of cutting costs. The Government have not been particularly open about that in the framework document, and it will be interesting to know how many respondents to the consultation process, which I believe has now finished, referred to the Government's aim of cutting costs.
	The Government have said that they see the framework document as a strategic one. The Minister hides behind the fact that the Bain report called for it. I am sure that it did—it called for a lot—but I am not sure that the Government have responded to everything in that report with provisions in the Bill. The framework sets out in minute detail how fire authorities must act in a huge number of respects, including human resources, training, control rooms and procurement. It goes so far as to talk about the swapping of personnel between various authorities and even between different branches of the emergency services. It talks at some length about effectively discharging those responsibilities at regional level. In fact, the word "regional" occurs throughout the document. The Government are looking closely at making regional management boards omnipotent over a large number of fire authorities. That might easily undermine the basis for the working of, for example, Somerset fire authority. That might be the Government's aim.
	There is definitely an irony here. The Minister has been keen at every twist and turn, both in the framework document and in Committee, to talk about local accountability, and I am sure that he is going to wax lyrical about it now. The irony is that Somerset county council will no doubt be able to see a nudge and a wink when they are offered. When human resources, training, control rooms and procurement are subsumed into a regional body, a cash-strapped Somerset county council will no doubt welcome the chance of a capital receipt and the chance to release the beautiful Hestercombe house on to the open market. The control room may well end up somewhere else in the south-west, whereas, if these changes were to happen in the fullness of time, it might move to the centre of Taunton, which would make far more sense for any tie-up with, say, Devon, Dorset or Cornwall.
	The basis for all those changes is this large framework document, which is 49 pages long; the Bill is only 26 pages. The framework needs to be subject to much more regular scrutiny, and that is why new clause 1 is so important. I hope that Conservative Members will call for a Division on it. At the very least, we need scrutiny, and there are effective ways of carrying that out without clogging up the machinery of government. Parliamentary scrutiny is necessary. It is impossible to deliver what we need in local terms from the framework as it has been drafted.

Nick Raynsford: New clause 1 seeks to introduce a requirement for a statutory instrument before the national framework can take effect. This requirement, unlike that in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) in Committee, would not alter the status of the framework as guidance. I suspect that the change in the amendment reflects the point that we made in Committee that wording the framework as a statutory instrument would probably not help comprehension and implementation by those engaged in the fire service.
	Our intention with the national framework is to provide a comprehensive document that will act as a "manual" for fire and rescue authorities. That is reflected by its status as guidance to which authorities must "have regard". By its nature, a national framework should provide strategic leadership—hence the inclusion of subsection (2)(a) in clause 21, stating that the fire and rescue national framework
	"must set out clear service priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities".
	That provision is very much in accordance with the thinking not only of the Bain report, but of the Select Committee, whose first recommendation is worth repeating. Its report was very good, and I am very happy to cite its first recommendation, which says:
	"The Committee broadly welcomes the reforms outlined in the White Paper and is hopeful that the Fire and Rescue Services Bill will bring about real reform in the Service. The Service needs strong political leadership to ensure successful implementation and management of change during a potentially very turbulent period. Government must lead by example, and must provide support at local level to ensure implementation of reform, even in the face of confrontation."
	That is exactly what we are doing and the framework has been produced within that remit.
	Providing strategic direction is not the only purpose of the fire and rescue framework. To be effective as a manual, the framework should include guidance on all aspects of Government fire and rescue policy and reference to good practice as it develops. There is an enormous amount of good practice in the fire and rescue service; the problem is often that it is not universal. We believe that the good practice of individual fire authorities, if adopted by others, could make a real difference. Spreading good practice is fundamental.
	The framework should also help to deal with the capacity support measures that the Government will provide to fire and rescue authorities, making it clear what help is available—an important matter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), to which I shall return. It will also help to deal with the independent performance assessment measures that the Audit Commission is implementing. I shall also say more about that later.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge accused us of producing a centralising document, but I have to say that it is not. We have repealed—or are in the process of repealing—a highly centralised statutory framework dating back to the Fire Services Act 1947, which prescribed in considerable detail exactly what was required in every part of the country. In its place, we are giving greater discretion and responsibility to fire and rescue authorities to develop their own integrated risk management plans, reflecting local needs and priorities. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly explained, there must be an overarching national framework to ensure that there is both coherence and consistency and that standards are not allowed to fall below acceptable levels. That is precisely the purpose of the framework.
	My hon. Friend was concerned about whether there might be a fall away from decent standards as a result of changing the 1947 Act framework, and I hope to reassure him on that point. We are absolutely committed to reducing deaths, to improving the effectiveness of the fire and rescue service and to ensuring more effective prevention of fire, which is the key to reducing the number of deaths. All our measures are designed to achieve that purpose.
	There is no question of a cuts package: no cuts whatever are envisaged. We are continuing to provide real grant increases to fire and rescue authorities, and we are investing heavily in new equipment for the fire and rescue service—and we are committed to carrying on doing so. That is in marked contrast to Conservative Members, who choose to criticise us opportunistically but who, significantly, did not include the fire and rescue service among those that would be exempt from the shadow Chancellor's pledge for no further growth. When we hear Conservative Members criticise us, we should remember that the Conservative party is committed to cuts in the fire service that will jeopardise the ability of fire and rescue authorities to implement the modernisation programme that we are introducing. Of course, it would be a risk only if—heaven help us—the Conservatives were elected again. I repeat my reassurance to my hon. Friend.
	We have been closely monitoring and supporting the development and implementation of IRMPs through the provision of guidance and risk assessment, with support teams working directly with fire and rescue authorities, and through our role as a consultee. The Bill re-enacts the existing statutory duty for a fire and rescue authority to plan and provide arrangements for fighting fires and protecting life and property from fires within its area. Authorities will be required to secure sufficient equipment and training to discharge their duty in normal circumstances and implement effective arrangements for receiving and responding to calls for help.
	The published guidance on IRMPs makes it clear that fire and rescue authorities should set their own locally determined standards, which should be expressed in easily understood terms, to measure performance on intervention and prevention. The framework will be closely monitored and will allow us to see whether we are making the progress that we are committed to making, and, if we are not, it will allow intervention to tackle any failures.

Hugo Swire: On prevention, will the Minister return to the points that we discussed earlier about the targets being moved? It is difficult for the layman to comprehend why the targets are being reduced. The target of achieving a 20 per cent. reduction in accidental fire deaths in homes by March 2004 has been pushed back to 2010, and the target of reducing deliberately started fires by 30 per cent. by 2009 has been cut to 10 per cent. Those reductions occur at a time when a country such as New Zealand has managed to halve such deaths in four years, so it must be possible to meet the targets. If the Bill is about prevention, why have the targets been moved?

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had been following proceedings, he would know that we are discussing new clause 1 and that targets are covered by a different new clause, which I shall deal with in due course. I was responding to issues raised properly in the context of new clause 1 and intend to continue to do so.
	I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that a working group set up by the practitioners forum is examining the issue of automatic fire alarms, which raises important considerations. We know that automated fire alarms produce a substantial number of malfunctions and that if appliances are called out to deal with a malfunctioning AFA when a real fire occurs, it could prejudice the response of the fire service to the other incident. It is therefore important to implement robust procedures to ensure that those incidents that cause genuine concern are responded to in the normal way, and that fire and rescue authority resources are not indiscriminately allocated where there is actually no risk. Finding the means to do that without creating greater risk is difficult, but it is a proper challenge that a number of fire authorities have already begun to address, and I hope that we can make considerable progress through the practitioners forum working group.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised a number of issues about how the community safety plan, which draws together different services, links with IRMPs. I reassure him that IRMPs allow fire and rescue authorities to provide extra resources for prevention work, which may be undertaken by them or in partnership with other bodies. There are many examples of good practice in partnership work, which may involve engaging with teachers and others who are in a position to assist with effective fire prevention activity in particular sections of the community. We want to see continuing work of that nature and will give further guidance through the support team that I have alluded to, which is in place to help authorities establish the new arrangements introduced by IRMPs.
	The fire and rescue national framework will play a significant role in driving forward the modernisation agenda, which is required to ensure that we have an effective fire and rescue service that saves more lives, and it is imperative that there are no unnecessary obstacles to delivering that agenda. The requirement for a statutory instrument to be agreed by this House before the national framework or amendments to the national framework can take effect could mean unnecessary delay and uncertainty.
	Before the Bill has received its Third Reading in this House, let alone consideration by another place or Royal Assent, we are already well advanced with the first draft of the national framework, which has been out for consultation, and we hope to publish the first definitive version this spring. Thereafter, we will update the framework and, in order to help authorities with their planning processes, we intend to publish the framework in time for the start of their budget setting and business planning rounds each year. Unnecessary delay and uncertainty before the framework takes effect would be entirely unhelpful.
	Furthermore, any guidance that updated policy would be issued as a revision to the framework, so that authorities and the Audit Commission were clear about our expectations. For example, we will provide guidance to ensure that medical criteria for firefighter appointment and retention are compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Under new clause 1, all such guidance would require a statutory instrument before having effect. The delay and uncertainty that would result from the requirement for a statutory instrument for each new piece of guidance would again be to the detriment of the smooth and efficient running of the service.
	We do not accept new clause 1, but we accept that Parliament has an important role in scrutinising decisions relating to fire and rescue policy. The Government will continue to be accountable to Parliament in the normal way. Clause 21(6) requires that we lay the plan, and any significant revisions to it, before Parliament and we have ensured in the legislation that, if the Secretary of State proposes to enforce a measure in the framework by exercising the intervention powers in clause 22, the order-making process will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There is already a good example of how that would work in the national plan for the police. The Police Reform Act 2002 requires the Secretary of State to prepare a national policing plan, but there is no requirement for a statutory instrument before the plan takes effect. The Secretary of State must lay the plan before Parliament in the same way that would be required for the framework.
	I can reassure the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that we have included in the legislation a requirement to consult in preparing the framework, or significant revisions to it. We have consulted widely, and we will continue to do so on future revisions. Members of both Houses have had the opportunity to comment during that process. Amendment No. 1 is consequential to new clause 1 and seeks to remove the requirement to lay the framework before Parliament. However, it is absolutely appropriate that Parliament is kept informed of the contents of the framework.
	Amendment No. 20 seeks to limit the priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities that the Secretary of State would be able to set out in the national framework to those that authorities could not "reasonably decide" for themselves. As I have already stressed, the Government have devolved much more responsibility to fire and rescue authorities. We have repealed section 19 of the 1947 Act, which required that any reduction in the number of fire appliances or firefighting posts, or the closure of any fire station, required the Secretary of State's consent.
	We have also replaced the outdated national standards of fire cover with local integrated risk management planning, thereby allowing more local discretion for fire and rescue authorities to deploy their resources in line with their assessment of present local needs and risks. However, we must get the balance right. The independent review of the fire service said:
	"successive Governments have not provided the leadership required".
	It also said:
	"it is for central government to set the Fire Service's strategic priorities and to provide a clear lead on policy development".
	The national framework will play a crucial role in providing that leadership and driving reform and improvement in the service. That includes setting priorities and objectives where appropriate, but we will not use the national framework unnecessarily to interfere with local decisions. That would run counter to our overall programme of reform, not least to the principle of local risk management.
	We see the national framework as a contract, embodying our partnership approach to reforming the service. It was first issued as a draft for consultation with plenty of time for people to comment before it became a statutory document. Clause 21(5) sets out a requirement for a full consultation process. However, the amendment would create unnecessary uncertainty about what can and cannot be "reasonably devolved" to a fire and rescue authority. That is obviously a subjective issue. The amendment would therefore inevitably lead to ambiguity and could in theory lead to expensive and time-consuming legal challenge. That is the last thing we need at a time when we are embarking on a major reform programme to deliver a better service that saves more lives.
	On new clause 3, I have previously referred to the existing protocol covering the use of existing intervention powers across all local authority services that has already been agreed with local government stakeholders and published. The protocol was developed through the framework for partnership, signed in November 1997 by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Government and by the chairman of the Local Government Association on behalf of local authorities. It has worked well and directions have had to be issued to local authorities on only two occasions.
	The protocol provides for a sufficient evidence base before any action is taken and for the form and extent of intervention to reflect the type and seriousness of failure and the need for effective improvement. It provides that, other than in cases of urgency, there should be a process of agreement with the authority on how it will address any service failure in the first instance. It provides for the use of intervention powers only if that process fails to deliver the required improvement. It also provides for consultation with the authority concerned on any proposed directions.
	In exercising the powers that we seek under clause 22 and elsewhere, we are committed, as I have already made clear, to following the principles set out in the protocol, which already covers the existing powers to intervene in fire and rescue authorities contained in the Local Government Act 1999. I do not believe that it would be sensible to produce a separate protocol for the powers in the Bill; the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has implied as much and, in the light of my reassurances, I am sure that he will want to withdraw the proposed new clause.
	Amendment No. 17, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, would require the national framework to set out minimum standards of response to incidents for fire and rescue authorities. I remind him that the independent review of the fire service stated:
	"there is a compelling case to move to a risk-based approach and to do so now . . . it should be for fire authorities to identify the risks and the best means of handling them".
	Following the recommendations of the independent review, we acknowledged in our White Paper last summer that national standards of fire cover that set out the speed and weight of response to incidents are no longer appropriate and that they would be replaced by integrated risk management plans, produced by each fire and rescue authority. Each IRMP should set out the authority's own standards for both prevention and intervention purposes, based on its assessment of risk to life in the local community. All fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales have published their draft plans, are consulting their communities and work forces on their proposals and will formally adopt their IRMPs from 1 April 2004.
	To require the inclusion of minimum standards of response in the framework would limit the flexibility that we intend to devolve to a local level to ensure that emergency cover and response is determined locally and provided on a risk to life, not a risk to property, basis. The inclusion of minimum standards could skew authorities' decisions on the allocation of resources.
	Let me provide a few statistics from the old national fire cover standards. Between 1997 and 2001, there were 2,600 fatalities and 76,300 injuries as a result of fires in England and Wales. Throughout that period, there were recommended minimum attendance standards. Specified attendance time to industrial and commercial—A and B risk locations—was between five and eight minutes, but a breakdown of the figures shows that 80 per cent. of fatalities occurred in C and D risk locations where attendance times were between eight and 20 minutes. That makes the point that if we base the whole approach on risk to life, it is important to move away from the old property-based standards, so that the approach reflects more effectively the risk to life.
	I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that there is no scope for local fire authorities simply to abandon the principle of action designed to save lives, but if we stuck with the old arrangements, there would equally be no scope for local fire and rescue authorities to vary the standards in the light of local circumstances to ensure a quicker and more effective response where people's lives were at risk. I am thinking particularly of night-time fires in houses containing families in residential areas where, under the old standards, the response requirement would have been slower than that for empty commercial property in a city centre. Such an arrangement cannot be right. The focus must be on threat to life and I hope that the IRMPs will allow a more sensitive implementation of what we are all committed to: measures to safeguard lives.
	New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to set targets for each fire and rescue authority in relation to the reduction of accidental fire deaths in the home and of deliberate fires, and to report to Parliament on progress in each Session. I am intrigued that the Opposition have moved that provision, as during most of our debates, not only on this Bill but on the Local Government Act 2003, they constantly attacked the Government for what they described as the unnecessary proliferation of centrally set performance targets. However, when it suits them politically, they are only too happy to try to impose targets.
	We remain absolutely committed to new national targets, which were announced in the fire White Paper, for the reduction of accidental fire deaths in the home and for the reduction of deliberate fires. As before, progress will be reported in the ODPM annual report, which is deposited in the Library. I should make it clear that there is no question of reducing the targets. We are committed to real reductions in the number of lives lost and the number of non-accidental fires. However, we recognise that since the targets were first set, changes in circumstance and a greater understanding of context have made it impossible for the original aspirational targets—that is what they were—to be achieved realistically. We need targets that can be delivered, rather than notional targets that would generate disappointment if they could not be met.

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford: No. The hon. Gentleman asked me about this earlier. I noted his comments and I am now responding to them, so I hope that he will listen.
	I completely reject any implication that the present targets are insufficiently challenging. If we were to take no action, we could expect an additional 200 accidental fire deaths over the period up to 2010. Instead, the target on accidental fire deaths commits us to saving more than 1,000 lives throughout that period. I am pleased to say that we are making good progress because accidental fire deaths in the home are at an all-time low of 292 for England and Wales. I wholly reject the completely incorrect assumption put forward by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that, as a result of changes to the targets, there will be more deaths and more deliberate fires than would otherwise occur. That is not the case because the numbers are reducing. We are committed to reducing them and we are committed to saving lives, but we are also committed to realism, rather than to targets that are simply not achievable for a variety of reasons.

Philip Hammond: The Minister cites the number of lives that his target will apparently save. Will he tell the House how many additional lives would already have been saved if the original date for achieving the target of March 2004 had been adhered to?

Nick Raynsford: As I have just told the hon. Gentleman, the latest figures show that we have made significant progress yet again on reducing the number of lives lost. I am surprised that he does not welcome the fact that accidental fire deaths in the home resulted in only 292 losses of life in 2002–03—the lowest level on record. We are reducing the number of lives lost. If people set an unrealistic target, they could in theory claim to be capable of achieving more. However, the original target was not achievable. We realised that, so we set a realistic and extremely challenging target for reducing the number of fire deaths.

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already and I need to make progress.

Hugo Swire: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman and answered his question. I am sorry that he is not in a mood to listen.
	We are absolutely committed to reducing deaths, injuries and unnecessary fires. That requires real commitment and continued investment, and it ill behoves Conservative Members to try to make cheap points when we know that their spending commitments would not protect the fire service. The service would thus be starved of funds and unable to achieve the commitments towards which we are working. We are hearing a lot of synthetic and unconvincing rhetoric from the Conservative party on the matter.
	Clause 21(2)(a) will require the Secretary of State to set out priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities in the national framework. The national targets on accidental fire deaths and deliberate fires are already in the first paragraph of the draft framework. The performance of fire and rescue authorities will be assessed by the Audit Commission, and the performance expectations set out in the national framework, which includes an explicit reference to the national targets, will be a key yardstick for the Audit Commission when assessing performance. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw the motion.

Philip Hammond: May I first deal with the Minister's remarks on new clauses 3 and 11? Let us get the pleasantries out of the way. On new clause 3, I am grateful to him for confirming that the Local Government Association code will apply to section 23 interventions. I know that many people outside the Chamber who were not entirely sure about the situation will be grateful that he has put his clarification on record.
	Any discussion of targets seems to evoke a strange response from this usually mild-mannered and reasonable Minister because he goes berserk whenever we draw attention to the targets that were set as part of the public service agreement several years ago. The targets were set by his Government, not by us, someone from outside or civil servants. I hope that he will not try to tell us that that was not the case. He now tells us that those targets were unachievable and unrealistic. I wonder what the Treasury thinks about being told that the targets, which were offered in exchange for Treasury funding in a previous spending review, are unachievable and unrealistic. The Minister does not have a leg to stand on. One moment he tells us that he has not relaxed the targets for accidental fire deaths, but a moment later he tells us that he has and is justified in doing so because unforeseen circumstances have intervened.

Nick Raynsford: What targets for reducing fire deaths is the hon. Gentleman's party committed to and what discussions has he held with his shadow Treasury colleagues on the resources necessary to deliver them?

Philip Hammond: We are in a situation in which the Government have set targets in the national framework that are lower than those agreed in a previous public service agreement. We are trying to ensure that the Government are held to account for future changes that they are minded to make to the targets set out in the national framework in the way that they made changes to the existing targets last summer.

Hugo Swire: Perhaps my hon. Friend can give me the answer that the Minister was clearly unwilling to do. We learned from the Minister that the original targets were aspirational. In that case, why was New Zealand able to halve the number of accidental fire deaths in its homes over four years? The Government's extension must be a de facto reduction in targets.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the New Zealand example. That country has been much quoted over the past 18 months in relation to fire, and for good reasons. Many people outside and inside the House might think that the Government, as a natural corollary of their modernisation programme, based as it is around redirecting resources to save lives, would not want to relax the targets for reducing accidental fire deaths, but to tighten them so that they are tougher and more demanding. The purpose of new clause 11 is not to change the targets, but to ensure proper scrutiny of them so that the Government cannot do what they did last summer and simply sneak in a reduced and relaxed target.
	The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) asked why I selected those two targets. It was because they are the two targets that the Government set out in the fire and rescue draft national framework. Although reduced, they are the same targets qualitatively as the two targets included in the previous public service agreement.
	The debate on new clause 11 has been useful. Members of the public and Members of the House will draw their own conclusions on what is or is not a reduced target. Members of the public and the media are used to looking carefully at the spin that the Government put on any numbers, figures or targets.
	The Minister addressed several of the detailed points raised on new clause 1, but he did not address the principal concern. The national framework is above all a strategic framework for the delivery of fire services. It is right and proper that such a framework should be fully scrutinised by Parliament. It is simply not good enough that Parliament will be kept informed, as he put it, as the framework evolves and is eventually introduced and modified. Parliament needs scrutiny and control of the process. His protestation that a negative resolution would be too time-consuming and in some way too costly for such an important measure, which is key to the modernisation of our fire and rescue services, is unacceptable. The Government have not made a case for rejecting new clause 1.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 254.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Retained firefighters

'(1) The Secretary of State shall by order, within six months of the coming into effect of any part of this Act, establish a body to be known as the Advisory Panel on the Recruitment and Retention of Retained Firefighters.
	(2) The body shall be made up of such people as the Secretary of State shall appoint to include—
	(a) at least two persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representatives of fire and rescue authorities or organisations representing fire and rescue authorities;
	(b) at least two persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representatives of retained firefighters or organisations representing retained firefighters;
	(c) at least two persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representatives of private sector employers or organisations representing private sector employers;
	(d) at least two persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representatives of public sector employers or organisations representing public sector employers.
	(3) The body shall meet as the Secretary of State shall direct to advise the Secretary of State and fire and rescue authorities on all matters relating to the recruitment and retention of retained duty firefighters.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The clause relates to retained firefighters, and I think that it is common ground on both sides of the House that they play a crucial part in the modernisation agenda. All too often the focus or the spotlight falls on the large metropolitan brigades, with their need occasionally to respond to major disasters and to think about the response to the new agenda of anti-terrorist preparedness. However, in many brigades throughout the country, retained firefighters are the backbone of the service.
	In many ways the challenges of modernisation are greater for those brigades that depend largely on retained firefighters. By and large, they will not see the same savings from changed work practices as those brigades that employ mainly whole-time firefighters. Almost by definition, those brigades with retained firefighters do not already have available a pool of full-time employed personnel to deal with the service's new emphasis on fire prevention. They are faced with some particular challenges as we move forward with this agenda. On the whole, the brigades in question are the smaller ones, with lighter management structures, which in turn pose further difficulties in addressing the issues.
	As I look round the Chamber, I am certain that every Member here would be happy to record the huge debt that is owed to retained firefighters for their sterling support of the community when they continued to provide cover during the brief but potentially dangerous fire strikes at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003. I regret to say that in some cases that was done in the face of intimidation and harassment from colleagues. By way of belated but well-deserved reward, those retained firefighters will be included in the new negotiating machinery, and the Minister made it clear in Committee that he intends that they should have proper representation, along with other groups of firefighters and employees of fire and rescue services.
	In the new clause, I have sought to address the overarching problem of the recruitment and retention of sufficient retained firefighters to allow the modernisation agenda to proceed successfully. It is increasingly difficult to find the kind of people who traditionally have worked as retained firefighters. I do not want to digress too far into anecdote, but when I was a boy I remember being terribly excited about the fact that the greengrocer was a retained firefighter. Every now and then, to great excitement in the greengrocer's shop, he would tear off in his car to fight a fire. In traditional communities, the small self-employed shopkeeper or business man could undertake that vital community role and provide himself with a worthwhile additional income. As our lives have become more complicated and as pressure on the self-employed has increased—people generally have to spend more time on running a business now—it has become less easy to persuade such people that they can afford the time and potential disruption to their business that being a retained firefighter entails.
	According to figures produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the retained firefighting force across the country is about 3,000 firefighters or 20 per cent. short of its intended strength, which represents a considerable gap in its ability to deliver what is required of the current structure and set-up. The Minister may wish to comment on this, but my understanding is that as we proceed with things such as integrated personal development strategies both retained firefighters and full-time firefighters will participate in in-job training and personal development programmes, which are extremely worth while but which, almost by definition, require a greater number of personnel to provide cover while people are undertaking training and personal development activities. We are 20 per cent. short now, but once the integrated risk management plans have been put in place, the modernisation agenda has been implemented more fully and the new human resources arrangements are up and running, we will have an even greater need for retained firefighters.
	The key to finding such people is recognising the role of employers. Some retained firefighters, of course, will be self-employed, but the great majority will be employees, and it is important that the House should acknowledge the need to focus on persuading employers of the benefit to the community and perhaps to themselves of releasing employees for retained duty. Various proposals were made in Committee. It was suggested, for example, that formal recognition should be bestowed on employers who release employees for retained duty and even that cash rewards or compensation should be made available to employers who sacrifice the efficiency of their business by allowing employees to play a role as retained firefighters.
	New clause 2 would introduce a formal recognition of the importance of retained firefighters and of the problem of recruiting and retaining them by establishing an advisory panel to the Secretary of State. In Committee, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), referred to a comprehensive review that he had established on 15 December 2003 looking at issues relating to retained firefighting and the need to recruit more retained firefighters. Why have I tabled the new clause, given that he told the Committee about that? I want to be clear that the Government recognise the need to involve employers from both the public and private sectors in the initiative.
	In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that the review would include
	"members from a variety of stakeholder groups, including the Local Government Association, CACFOA and the RFU".
	When I intervened to ask him whether the employer community was also engaged in the process, he replied:
	"The employers will be fully engaged in the process."
	However, it turned out that we were speaking at cross purposes, as he clarified his remarks by saying:
	"The LGA is in the review team."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 2 March 2004; c. 386–387.]
	The Local Government Association is a representative of employers of retained firefighters, but I had intended to convey to him the need to engage the employers of potential retained firefighters—the businesses and public bodies that employ such people in their everyday jobs, which need to be persuaded of the community's need for them to be released for retained firefighting duties. As far as I understood it, he confirmed in the Committee that representatives of employer organisations other than the LGA were not engaged in the review process. I would like the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and various other bodies that represent private sector employers to be included. I would also like representatives of the big public sector employers to be engaged in the process. Of course, the public sector must lead by example. In many parts of the country, large proportions of the population are engaged in public sector employment; indeed, the proportion is as much as a third in some areas.
	The point of tabling the new clause was to seek to formalise the advisory panel as an ongoing body that would advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to retained firefighters and also to formalise the membership of the panel so that it included representatives not only of the fire and rescue authorities and the retained firefighters, but of employers from both the public and private sectors. The problem should be put on the table—we are 3,000 retained firefighters short today, and the number may be 4,000 by the time that the IRMP process is completed—and we need to work together to ensure that additional retained firefighters are delivered in the places where they are needed.
	In my fire authority, Surrey, there are proposals in the integrated risk management plan to change the manning of a fire station from whole time to retained service. Of course, that will be possible and the saving will be harnessed only if and when it is possible to recruit the additional retained firefighters. The provision of 24-hour retained cover at a single-appliance fire station will take a considerable number of retained firefighters. I have not done the maths, but I suspect that about 20 or 24 individuals are required to provide 24-hour retained cover in a single-appliance fire station, although the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong.
	I tabled the new clause to draw attention to the point and to get the Under-Secretary to focus on the role of employers and—I hope—to give some commitment about the engagement of employers in the process. I shall certainly not press the new clause to a Division if he can assure us that employers in the public and private sector will be properly engaged. Furthermore, I tabled the new clause because I know that some hon. Members—not least those from the Devon contingent, which featured strongly in Committee—will have a lot to say about retained firefighters. Devon is a fire authority that depends almost entirely on retained firefighters.
	Having tabled the new clause, I did some further digging. On Friday, the Retained Firefighters Union told me that it had done a quick survey of eight fire authorities picked at random and discovered, shockingly, that not one had a budget for recruiting retained firefighters. That is a serious situation, when we are already facing a shortfall of 3,000, and the shortfall is likely to increase.
	It is imperative that we act. Retained firefighters are arguably the most cost-effective part of the fire service. Failing to recruit and retain enough of them will undermine the modernisation process and will certainly slow down the harvesting of its financial savings. The authorities with the largest number of retained firefighters are almost invariably those with the least scope for modernisation savings and the smallest slice of the transitional funding that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made available.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that there will be a mechanism whereby employers, both public and private, will be included in the process in a way that fully recognises their key role. I look forward to his response and to the contributions that I confidently anticipate from the aforementioned Devon contingent.

Richard Younger-Ross: Devon was indeed extremely well represented in Committee, with three members, but the south-west generally did not do too badly either, with five. However, that did not mean that we always got our points across to the Minister.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) spoke about employer representation on the review body. He thinks that he was at cross purposes with the Minister, but I understood exactly what he meant in Committee, so I am surprised that it was not so clear to the Government.
	We debated this at length in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman has mentioned our probing amendments on encouraging employers to release people to serve as retained firefighters. We suggested cash rewards, which will perhaps not prove to be the way forward, as a way of recognising what employers do. The Minister responded positively and said that retained firefighters were a vital resource, so I am horrified to hear that there are eight fire authorities with no money to recruit them. That is a scandal.

Philip Hammond: In fact, it is worse than that. The Retained Firefighters Union polled the eight authorities at random, so the statistical suggestion must be that many more will prove to have no budget.

Richard Younger-Ross: That is an appalling situation. It could be that the authorities that rely heavily on retained crew are having problems with their budget. The Government are quite rightly seeking parity of salaries for retained firefighters, so they have recognised the need in words, but they have not recognised it in cash terms. Let us consider the example of the combined authority in Devon, which relies heavily on retained firefighters. The 16 per cent. pay increase over three years translates into a 23 per cent. increase in the budget of the Devon fire authority. That authority is finding it hard to make ends meet and says that it would require a further £2 million to achieve the same sort of funding as other fire authorities. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising if recruitment campaigns are cut in the attempt to ensure that resources are put into essential services such as firefighting, the response to road traffic accidents and so on.
	The problem will get worse. As work patterns change and our countryside has fewer people working in it and more people commuting longer distances, those available on the ground will become few and far between. It is therefore imperative that greater efforts are made to recruit those few people who reside close enough to the station. The Government accept that a genuine problem needs to be tackled. I hope that they also accept that it is not simply a matter of an advertising campaign or a review but of considering the way in which fire authorities are funded to recruit and retain those firefighters. Parity is good as far as it goes but it falls apart if the fire service is left short of cash.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned local authorities. We do not need a review in that case because Ministers are responsible for local authorities. I therefore urge the Minister to write a letter to himself to spur himself to write to local authorities telling them to be more responsive and to encourage their members of staff to become retained firefighters. Many authorities resist that, which is a great shame because a potential resource is not being used. In rural areas, its use is essential.

David Drew: I wish to make a couple of brief observations. Like other constituencies, Gloucestershire relies heavily on retained firefighters. However, those firefighters can function only if they have a close relationship with full-time firefighters. Sometimes we talk about retained firefighters as though they work in isolation and provide cover to an area on their own, but, in order to provide effective fire cover, the full-time firefighters in a sizeable market town must have a relationship with the retained firefighters in the smaller market towns. Whatever the Government devise, a structure that recognises that relationship is vital.
	I do not want to get hung up on the idea of an advertising budget. I accept that advertising might attract some individuals, but the main problem is that the retained fire service operates restrictively. If we had an arrangement under which people would be off call far more often, we could recruit them more easily. However, the system is predicated on the belief that people live and work locally. If either does not pertain, the opportunity to become a retained firefighter is precluded. We may have to consider a system whereby people who work locally but live some distance away are on call when they are at work and those who live locally and are willing to be retained firefighters and on call at times of greatest danger in the evenings and at night are not on call during the day, when they work away from home.
	I do not think that this is a matter for statute. I think we should ask ourselves whether we have a service that is fit for the 21st century, and it is clear that the service is not currently working very well. The only way in which the three retained fire stations in my neck of the woods—Painswick, Nailsworth and Dursley—can recruit is by word of mouth. Nepotism often occurs: the sons and daughters of existing retained firefighters often become retained firefighters themselves, because they have been targeted directly. I do not think that is a terribly good thing, because we want the service to be open and accessible, and in any case it is a pretty ad hoc method.

Philip Hammond: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He mentioned an advertising budget. I do not think that a responsible fire authority would limit a ring-fenced budget to advertising for recruitment purposes. There is much more to recruitment than advertising. I wonder how many people are aware of the retained fire service, of how it works and of the opportunities it provides.

David Drew: That is certainly true. I am merely saying that I think any advertising should be aimed at employers rather than attempting to recruit directly. Employers may encourage staff to think about becoming retained firefighters, but those who are interested will have probably taken that route already. It is more a question of securing release from employers.
	I think we need a set of proposals from the Government, rather than legislation for the statute book.

Hugo Swire: The Minister will have to resist the temptation to use the Labour party buzzword of the last fortnight—"opportunistic", as applied to everything that the Opposition do—because I think that there is a commonality of interest in this case. The new clause is eminently sensible, and deals with an issue about which we in the west country feel strongly. As we have heard, Devon in particular relies very much on its retained firefighters.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that retained firefighters should not be regarded in an individual way, in that they are part and parcel of the deal. In our part of the world, however, they are perhaps more significant than they are in other areas. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) mentioned the costs to Devon fire and rescue service of the increase in retained firemen's salaries—above 16 per cent. over three years, representing a total increase of 23 per cent. in the authority's budget. That means that a £2 million increase is needed for the service just to stand still.
	The Bill does not address the issue of rural sparsity, which has an impact on the question of retained firemen. Nowadays we look increasingly to employers in the private sector, and elements of the public sector, to release employees so that they can do community jobs. We have community support police, for instance, as well as established voluntary bodies such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the Sidmouth inshore lifeboat service—if I may give a plug to an excellent service in my area.
	We seem to be asking businesses, particularly those in the private sector, to do more and more, while penalising them through higher national insurance contributions and more and more socially based legislation. All that deters them from taking on more people in order to expand. Now we are telling them that, having taken on more people despite all the penalties, they should release those people to do community jobs. We have to be very careful in terms of how much we ask these hard-pressed businesses to do.
	However, I take the point that we need to raise awareness of the existence of the retained fire service and the opportunities within it—not only among employers but among the employees themselves. However, I am not convinced that an advertising campaign per se is the answer. It might go some way towards alleviating the problem in the short term, but we need to articulate a career structure in the retained service to show people that there is a career progression, that the terms of employment have been improved, and that the service is a viable alternative for those who cannot become full-time firemen, or for those for whom the fire service has not provided the opportunity to become full-time firemen.
	I do not know the latest figures for retained firefighters in Devon—whether there is a problem, or whether one is likely to arise—but the genuine feeling exists that this legislation is based on the desire to create larger units, which it surely will, and that at some point our service will be subsumed and we will come off worse. Ours is a very good fire authority that works extremely well, using a lot of local knowledge; frankly, it cannot be improved upon. A merger and no increase in the number of retained firemen could result in one of two things: a loss of cover or a cut in services. As we all know, for a rural area the insurance implications of a loss of cover could be very profound indeed. That issue has not been touched on at all.
	I take the point, made by the hon. Member for Stroud, about increasing the number of off-call retained firemen, but to go down that road would require increasing the number of retained firemen on call at any given time. I do not see how having more off-call firemen would deal with the problem of a lack of retained firemen. Yet more would be needed, and such a problem cannot be solved in that way.
	I should be interested to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say about new clause 2. We Conservatives are generally against increasing the amount of legislation, but the creation of such an advisory panel would mean that our retained firemen were being properly represented. The new clause is well constructed. It refers to
	"representatives of fire and rescue authorities or organisations representing fire and rescue authorities",
	and to
	"representatives of private sector employers or organisations representing private sector employers".
	I suspect that there are lessons to be learned, particularly in the light of the mobilisation—[Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary would do me the courtesy of listening, he might be in a better position to answer this point. Indeed, when I asked the Minister for Local and Regional Government a direct question earlier, I was not granted the courtesy of a direct reply.
	I shall re-run what I said to allow the Under-Secretary to take it on board. In terms of releasing private sector and public sector employees, there are probably lessons to be learned from the recent Iraq war. There was a significant mobilisation of the Territorial Army and other reserve forces, but to be honest some employers were more compliant and encouraging to their employees than others. It would be very interesting if representatives of those self-same employers were included on a advisory panel, which might well be able to answer some of our questions about retained firemen.

John Redwood: Given that the Under-Secretary is not even extending to my hon. Friend the courtesy of listening to his argument, is he not a little worried that such an advisory body would be ignored by a Government who are not interested in the employer's view, and who do not look after retained firemen?

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Having sat through our deliberations in Committee, I know that neither the Under-Secretary nor the Minister is interested in any of our arguments. So far as they are concerned, they are going to implement this measure, in keeping with their attempt to regionalise everything and in line with the artificial regions that they are seeking to create throughout the country. It is part of their regionalisation programme, and anything that stands in the way of that is dismissed.
	The Government say that we are little Englanders and that we are not keen on modernisation, but as we know, that is all baloney. [Interruption.] The Minister says "Correct" from a sedentary position, but many of the people who will shortly be invited to vote on whether to have regional assemblies will probably show that it is we who are correct. We leave that, however, to the electorate—something that the Minister is apparently not prepared to do, given that he is prejudging the result of a democratic vote. Historically, that has been shown to be a dangerous thing to do.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) suggested that the Minister might not be listening to employers. There is no real evidence that anything that this Government have ever done has involved listening to employers, particularly in the private sector. They are seen as the bogey men, the people who must pay more each time there is a tax rise. As we look forward to a third term of Labour tax rises, if there is to be one—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members are clearly not listening. As we look forward to a possible third term of Labour tax rises, those employers will be invited to pay more and more tax, but we are asking the self-same people to release employees to act as retained firefighters.
	It is incumbent on the Minister for Local and Regional Government to consider having a platform, such as that suggested in new clause 2, to enable representatives of the retained fire services and employers to get round a table and solve a problem that he has to admit exists—we have not invented it. I shall be interested to know the answer, if either the Minister or the Under-Secretary will do me the courtesy of answering the question.

Adrian Flook: If we are to protect the fire service in our rural counties, we need an advisory panel on the recruitment and retention of retained firefighters. That would make eminent sense. As we have already heard, retained firefighters are the backbone of the service, especially in rural areas. That is certainly the case in Somerset, where only three of the 27 firefighting stations are full time: Taunton, Bridgwater and Yeovil; the other 24 stations operate on a retained basis. In my constituency, that involves some very brave men and women in Wellington, Wiveliscombe and Dulverton. By definition, they are drawn closely from the local community, which is vital in rural areas because many addresses are not tabulated in the way in which we should like them to be, and local knowledge is needed to discover exactly where fires are, and where firefighters must go.
	The future is worrying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said, the recruitment and consequent retention of firefighters in the retained stations is dropping considerably. There is already a 20 per cent. shortfall, which is no surprise in rural areas. My hon. Friend mentioned greengrocers, and many farmers and farm workers are also involved, of whom there are now far fewer. As we all know, there are also fewer farms—no doubt because other Government policy undermines them. There are therefore fewer and fewer people who are willing and physically able to be retained firefighters.
	It is important to address that issue, and one way of doing so would be better and more fully to understand why employers might be willing to release individual employees to be retained firefighters. It is therefore helpful and sensible to suggest that an advisory panel be set up. It would be even more helpful if there were greater representation of private sector employers. I presume that the 20 per cent. shortfall is increasing rather than decreasing, and although the Government may not agree with the precise wording of new clause 2, I should be interested to learn how the Minister for Local and Regional Government intends to remove that serious impediment to the modernisation of the fire service. Somerset, a rural county that is delivering its firefighting capability very cost effectively, is not receiving its fair share of the transitional funding needed to move to a modernised firefighting service. That is also the case in Devon. If the shortfall is increasing, one solution would be to set up an advisory panel, as proposed in new clause 2, to enable the Government to understand the reasons behind the shortfall and work towards lessening it.

Richard Younger-Ross: I am not too sure of the situation in Somerset, but Devon requires £2 million in transitional funding and has been loaned £500,000. The important word is "loaned"; the money must be paid back.

Adrian Flook: I am grateful for that intervention. Only a quarter of the contribution is being made in the short term—rather than in the long term—because it has to be paid back.
	The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made an excellent point about the need to raise awareness. In communities that have retained firefighters, the firefighters' neighbours will probably know what they do part time, at weekends and at night, but the majority of people in communities such as Wellington, Wiveliscombe and Dulverton will not be aware of that. It would help if the Government and local firefighters did more to raise that awareness.
	I welcome the announcement that the Minister made on 15 December of a review of the retained firefighting service. It will be interesting, some weeks on, to see whether he is able to inform the House of any progress. In Committee, he alluded to the involvement of the CBI, and I would be interested to hear whether he would consider it appropriate for the Federation of Small Businesses or the Institute of Directors to become involved, and whether they could be asked why they believe there is a shortfall and how they could help to shore up the gap, which seems to be getting larger rather than smaller.

Phil Hope: I appreciate the concerns about the recruitment and retention challenges that face the retained section of the fire and rescue service, which have prompted the proposal of this new clause, but I believe that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) is misguided in suggesting that a new statutory standing body would be an effective method of tackling these issues. I hope that I will be able to satisfy his concerns about engagement with the public and private sector employers, for example. I note that he has recruited two whole-time Back Benchers—if I may call them that—from the Committee, and one retained Back Bencher, who seems to have slipped in, and who will possibly slip out again later—[Interruption.] I also appreciate that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge seems to have taken the whole Committee stage through single-handedly.
	Hon. Members will no doubt recall that the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council also acted as a statutory consultee for the majority of the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers under the Fire Services Act 1947. That body has already been criticised for its increasing inability to provide any strategic direction on the future of the fire and rescue service. Indeed, Professor Bain's report recommended a new advisory and consultative structure that would widen engagement with stakeholders and ensure a focus on strategic advice rather than on executive functions. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that we have already put this new, more flexible structure in place. The practitioners forum and the business and community safety forum are up and running to ensure that both the providers and the users of the service can inform the process of modernisation.

Philip Hammond: Which business representative organisations are engaged in the business and community safety forum?

Phil Hope: I can confirm that the CBI, for example, is a member of the forum. The hon. Gentleman mentioned other business organisations, and I shall describe in a moment how they are being consulted in the review of the retained fire service.
	It was not just the existing advisory and consultative structure that Professor Bain considered to be ineffective. The independent review of the fire service found the existing negotiating machinery also to be ineffective. The Bain report recommended that it be replaced with
	"a smaller body, with executive authority to negotiate and the experience and skills to do so".
	The new body should have an independent chair and clear links to Ministers and the policy-making process. Significantly, Bain also made it clear that membership of the body should include the Retained Firefighters Union, whose members, like those of the other unions, have a keen interest in the new clause and a very strong interest in effective negotiating machinery. I include in that the National Association of Fire Officers, the Association of Principal Fire Officers and Unison, as well as the Fire Brigades Union.
	In the White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service", we made it clear that we agreed with much of Bain's thinking on the negotiating machinery. Our objective was—and still is—to see three negotiating bodies for uniformed fire and rescue service staff. We want one for chief fire officers and assistant chief fire officers; one for middle managers; and one for fire fighters and control room staff. Like Bain, we also want the new negotiating bodies extended to include a wider range of employee representative bodies. That will benefit all fire service employees and will ensure that issues relating to the pay terms and conditions of retained staff can be tackled effectively.
	Members will know that, under the pay agreement for the fire and rescue service 2003, the current negotiating machinery is being reviewed. I hope that that review will result in the improvements that both the independent review of the fire service and the recent White Paper articulated—a matter that later amendments touch on—but, if it does not, the Bill will enable the Government to take the powers needed to bring about those improvements themselves. I still hope that that will not be necessary.
	Hon. Members will be aware that, both in the White Paper and the draft national framework, the Government have recognised the vital contribution of the retained section of the service and have acknowledged the need to find solutions to the long-recognised problems of recruitment and retention, which have been mentioned this afternoon. That is why I announced on 15 December that there would be a review of issues affecting the retained section of the service. Under the more flexible arrangements afforded by the new consultative structure, a team has now been formed to take forward that review.
	The review team's key remit is to examine the factors that contribute to the recruitment and retention challenges faced by the retained section of the fire and rescue service. That will include issues surrounding equality and diversity, public awareness, engagement with the business community, deployment, community participation, and the role, reward and conditions of service as they relate to recruitment and retention issues.
	The retained review team met for the first time on 21 January. Its membership is drawn from across the fire and rescue service community and includes representatives from the Local Government Association, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, the Retained Firefighters Union, the Fire Brigades Union, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Scottish Executive justice department.
	Although the focus of the review will be the fire and rescue services of England and Wales, the Scottish Executive justice department's participation has been invited because the issues that the retained review team will be investigating also have relevance to the Scottish fire service. ODPM will also liaise with the Northern Ireland fire service about the work of the review team.
	Only the key service stakeholder groups will be directly involved on the review team. However, other organisations—including public and private employers' organisations—will be involved in helping to identify a range of options for tackling the recruitment and retention challenges. I made it very clear in Committee that employers would be fully engaged in the process. It is essential that we understand the motives, and the reluctance, of private and public employers whom we wish to attract into releasing staff to become retained firefighters. The review team is therefore seeking advice from a wide range of public and private sector employers and the national bodies that represent them.
	Let me go further to provide more reassurance to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. A workshop has been arranged for the end of April, which will involve the review team, other representatives from the fire and rescue service, organisations that rely on volunteers in order to provide a service, Government Departments, employers' organisations in the public and private sectors and bodies that promote opportunities for voluntary work both to individuals and to employers. We anticipate that the workshop will provide the review with valuable insight into how the challenges of recruitment, retention and business community engagement can be effectively overcome.
	The business community will include the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, which will bring a welcome nod from Conservative Members, and Business in the Community. I might add that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, along with the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, will also be invited. We would like to invite those bodies, along with others that I shall not read out, to participate in the workshop, and I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.
	On recruitment budgets for retained firefighters, I am sure that the review will want to take into account the survey, which has been mentioned this afternoon. The retained review must examine recruitment budgets, which are matters for individual fire and rescue authorities, because we do not know whether they separately identify whole-time and retained firefighters. When we make judgments about budgets, we must know the detail, which is exactly what a review team and a workshop can identify. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is providing centrally produced recruitment literature for use by all fire and rescue authorities.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister will know, because it has been in all the papers, that there is a massive campaign to recruit special constables. Does he envisage that the Government might lead or encourage such a recruitment campaign for retained firefighters?

Phil Hope: The retained review is all about examining what works and what does not. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the ODPM is producing a video that includes information on retained firefighters, which can be issued to raise awareness in the local community about the wider role of retained firefighters. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge pointed out that the issue is about not only adverts but understanding the wider contribution that retained firefighters make and that we want them to continue to make in future.

Hugo Swire: Can the workshop's remit be extended to discuss with the Institute of Directors and other employers' organisations what incentives can be offered to employers who regularly release their employees as retained firemen?

Phil Hope: The problem with identifying one or two organisations is that the list tends to grow. I cannot say whether the workshop will examine that point, but it is the exactly the kind of issue that the review team must examine to ensure that we are getting things right.
	A number of hon. Members have raised questions about different things that the review might do. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked whether greater flexibility in the times when retained firefighters are required to be on call might help recruitment, and the review team will certainly examine that issue. Individual fire services are already examining the requirement to be on call, with flexibility in mind, and they are offering differing contracts depending on what times retained firefighters can offer. My hon. Friend's contribution was helpful and it addresses the issue of the availability of retained firefighters in terms of their living or working close to a fire station.
	The hon. Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and for Taunton (Mr. Flook) discussed funding. I do not want to get diverted into a debate about funding, but when they bid for extra cash for Devon, which is understandable, they might like to have a word with the shadow Chancellor, who has just announced a policy to freeze funds for local government—I do know how he will square that with his Back Benchers. Conservative Front Benchers often say that they will clamp down on public spending, but Conservative Back Benchers keep standing up and asking for more cash. I do not want to introduce discord into the debate; I simply point out some of the contradictions in the position adopted by Conservative Members.
	The physical hard work undertaken by retained firefighters in their firefighting activities has been pointed out, but the Bill's purpose is to broaden the role that the fire service plays, which includes promoting community fire safety. We will attract many more people into the fire service, whether they are whole-time or retained firefighters, who will undertake a variety of roles. The extra numbers mean that firefighters can focus on prevention, which is important in reducing fire death.

Philip Hammond: That is interesting. Does the Minister envisage fire authorities engaging retained personnel to carry out routine, non-emergency response duties? As far as I know, the bulk of the retained work is responsive, and the nature of the role will change slightly if retained firefighters report by pre-planned arrangements to do preventive work.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the bulk of the work is responsive. When I described the fire service's wider role in prevention at the Retained Firefighters Union conference, a retained firefighter said that retained firefighters could not do that. Before I could respond, a Welsh retained firefighters' representative stood up and gave an excellent account of how retained firefighters are doing precisely that in Wales. The flexibility and diversity of the role provides many opportunities for retained firefighters to contribute to the overall targets that we are endeavouring to achieve.
	I have answered in full the questions about how we will consult on the future of retained firefighters, and I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he requires. The review team will, we hope, submit its report to the practitioners forum in July, and its report will contain its recommendations, its implementation and communications strategies and its programme for delivery. Given today's debate and the consultation, which will take place not only through the workshop but in other ways, I hope that we have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that new clause 2 is not necessary and that he will see fit to withdraw it.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but I detect a touch of complacency. He does not recognise the crisis that the retained service currently faces—the retained service is short of 20 per cent. of its personnel and as the role expands that shortfall is likely to get considerably worse.
	I am interested in the workshop that the Minister is holding. As he anticipates, I shall write to him to suggest some other organisations that might appropriately be invited to participate in order to ensure that the business community bodies represent the employers found in the areas where the retained service operates—on the whole, that is not city centres or even large towns but rural and semi-rural areas. If the Minister has an observer ticket for that workshop, perhaps he will write to me. I promise to keep my mouth closed, but I would be interested to see what goes on.
	It is disappointing that the Minister has not made a commitment to add business membership to the review team, which is the ongoing body that will report to the practitioners forum in the summer. Despite everything that Ministers say about changing the culture of the fire service, which I am sure that they genuinely want to achieve, their approach is still exclusive. The review team is made up entirely of insiders—employers, civil servants, expert advisers and union officials—who will listen to what people in the real world have to say, but those slightly awkward people from the real world have not been risked on the inside of the deliberation. I would feel more comfortable if the Minister had said that he would put representatives of the business community on to the review team, which might then achieve rapid progress in the direction that we all want to go.
	Perhaps the best way to make progress would be if the Minister were to have a quite word in the ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, preferably before Wednesday, to suggest that when he is thinking about incentives to business to do various worthwhile things for the good of the economy, he might spare a thought for those businesses that could be persuaded to release employees for retained firefighting duties, which might make a rapid difference to the available pool of retained firefighters.
	I do not intend to press new clause 2; I simply wanted to raise the issue. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and hope that we can regard the debate as ongoing, because it is in everybody's interests that we address the retained firefighter crisis.
	I have one final point. The Minister said that he was not sure whether fire authorities had separate budgets for recruitment of retained firefighters or whether that was subsumed within a larger budget. Given the scale of the crisis and the significance of retained firefighter recruitment in some fire authorities, appropriate fire authorities should identify separate budgets for that purpose. When the Bill reaches the statute book, the Minister will have various powers to ensure that that happens and I hope that he will consider doing so as a means of making progress on the issue.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Limitation on Power to Authorise Charging

'(1) An order under section 19 may not authorise a fire and rescue authority to charge for:
	(a) extinguishing fires or protecting life and property in the event of fires; or
	(b) rescuing people in the event of road traffic accidents or protecting people from serious harm in the event of road traffic accidents; or
	(c) discharging any function relating to emergencies conferred on it by the Secretary of State under section 9.
	(2) An order under section 19 may authorise a fire and rescue authority to charge for the provision of emergency medical assistance only in circumstances where a National Health Service Ambulance Trust is authorised to charge for such provision.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendment No. 12.
	Amendment No. 2, in clause 19, page 9, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
	Government amendment No. 13.

Philip Hammond: The new clause deals with the scope of the power of the Secretary of State to authorise charging under clause 19. The current regime, under the 1947 Act, confers only one statutory function on fire authorities—that of extinguishing fires and protecting life and property in the event of fire—and prohibits charging for the discharge of that activity, but by omission it allows charging for all other areas of fire service activity. The practice is that few authorities charge for emergency work. I shall focus in this short debate on road traffic accidents.
	We should not confuse this issue with the power that exists, and could specifically be granted to fire and rescue authorities under the Bill, to charge for non-emergency functions, such as the use of equipment and manpower, or the establishment of the authority to carry out everyday functions such as pumping water out of a basement or filling a swimming pool. Those are useful functions, but they are not central to the emergency role of the service.
	An essential part of the purpose of the Bill is to put road traffic accidents and other emergency work—for example, chemical and nuclear decontamination in the event of a terrorist attack, or rescue from floodwater—at the heart of what the fire and rescue services do. All those roles will have the same essential statutory basis as the current requirement to extinguish fires and protect life and property in the event of fire. The Minister has argued repeatedly—somewhat disingenuously—that because the Bill has a continuing prohibition on charging for fire-related activities, it reflects the 1947 Act. However, as I see it, that Act bans charging for the statutory function of the fire authority. There is only one statutory function at present. To retain the status quo, we would need to extend that ban on charging to all statutory functions, including attending at road traffic accidents and other emergencies. New clause 4 does not go that far. It does not suggest that the ban on charging should extend to the statutory functions of fire prevention and fire education work under clause 6. It simply suggests a prohibition on charging for the emergency statutory functions of the fire and rescue authorities under clauses 7, 8 and 9.
	On the one hand, the Bill extends a clear additional statutory function, but on the other it seeks to keep open the ability to charge for the discharge of that function in an emergency. That is not an acceptable proposition, and it is not what our constituents expect us to legislate for. The Bill also provides for the charging of third parties, which is a thinly disguised reference to insurers. Charging motor insurers would represent another stealth tax on the Government's favourite victim, the motorist. What about the uninsured—the millions of people who drive on our roads every day without insurance? They are an increasing problem. Would they pay? How would the Government collect charges from people who do not have an insurer to pay up on their behalf, when they cannot collect two thirds of the fines imposed by courts on similar people? Will not this be simply another example of an additional charge or tax on the law-abiding, insured majority, while the public purse continues to support the antisocial minority?

John Redwood: Is my hon. Friend worried that if a fire authority was particularly keen to recoup its costs in the way that he describes, there might be an argument about payment before someone received the service that they deserved in an emergency situation?

Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend raises an important point, but it is not a question of "might". At least one fire authority—the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority—is keen to charge in that way and has made it clear that it would like powers to charge for road traffic accident rescue work. Another practical problem might arise if fire authorities were allowed to charge for attending road traffic accidents. What if someone were involved in a road traffic accident and was trapped in his vehicle but physically uninjured? Such a person might tell the fire brigade, which has raced to the scene with lights flashing and sirens blaring, that he does not want to be cut out of his car and receive a bill for £250. He would rather wait while his friendly local mechanic or a chap he knows from down the pub, whom he has just phoned on his mobile phone, comes along to cut him out. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is central to our relationship with the emergency services that it never crosses our minds to ask whether we will be charged for the services delivered. When we pick up the phone and dial 999 because we see smoke, we do not wonder first whether there will be a charge for calling the fire brigade.
	I am against charging for emergency services that are part of a statutory function, although I am not necessarily against charging for non-emergency work. I am also against discriminating against the law-abiding majority by limiting charging to those with insurers able to pay. That is the Government's idea of the way to make such charges a painless tax. I made the same point when I was health spokesman in 1998 during the passage of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999. I sought an assurance in Committee on behalf of motorists, but all I got was a lecture from the Minister about bad landlords causing people to be trapped in lifts. Any hon. Members who have offices in Portcullis House will know that it has the eight lifts most likely to break down nearby, but they are not maintained by someone whom I would regard as a particularly bad landlord. I hope that the Minister will deal with motorists involved in road traffic accidents, instead of trying to refocus the discussion on people trapped in lifts.
	Amendment No. 2 would leave out clause 19(2), which prevents charging for extinguishing fires, and replace it with new clause 4, which would prevent charging for fires, road traffic accidents and any emergency functions conferred on fire and rescue authorities by clause 19. That is an enabling clause that will give the Secretary of State power to confer functions by statutory instrument. We have the benefit of the Secretary of State's preliminary thinking, in the form of a draft statutory instrument that was circulated in Committee. To broaden the House's understanding of what is involved in clause 19 functions, the draft statutory instrument includes chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear incidents; search and rescue in cases in which there is a serious threat that one or more persons has been trapped in the area as a result of a landslide or the collapse of a building; major flooding; and major rail, water and air accidents. It would be unthinkable to charge people for interventions in such emergencies, so why on earth cannot the Government rule out doing so?
	Subsection (2) of new clause 4 addresses a different issue: charging for emergency medical assistance. The background to the provision is the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999, which authorises charging, via insurers, for the costs of national health service treatment provided after a road traffic accident. Our position during the progress of that measure was—as it remains—that we resist unfair discrimination against the motorist, who should not be seen as a soft target simply because, if he is a law-abiding individual, he will generally have insurance.
	A programme is currently under way to promote co-response and, indeed, first response by fire and rescue authorities, whereby if a fire and rescue authority is the first on the scene of an incident, it will increasingly—I shall come to that point later—be able to deliver emergency medical assistance. Furthermore, especially in rural areas, fire services could in future be the first responder to other types of medical emergency—for example, cardiac arrests—if the fire station was significantly nearer to the patient than the nearest ambulance station. We simply cannot have a situation in which people pay according to whether the fire engine or the ambulance gets there first. That would be outrageous and our proposal attempts to deal with it.
	The Minister has obviously understood our concern, which we debated in Committee, and I am delighted that he responded with Government amendment No. 12, especially subsection (2A), which bans all charging for emergency medical assistance by fire authorities. However, I find myself in the curious position of having to tell him that I think he has given too much. We risk the opposite scenario, in which the victim lying at the roadside would no longer have to listen to the ambulance approaching from one side and the fire engine approaching from the other, hoping that the ambulance got there first so that he would not be charged by the fire service. As a result of amendment No. 12, he could be hoping that the fire engine got there first, because under the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999, if the ambulance arrived first, he might be charged by the NHS.
	I anticipate the Minister's defence to my objection. A patient treated at the scene by a fire brigade will not always be taken away in an ambulance to an NHS hospital. Often, people at the roadside with minor injuries decline, for all sorts of reasons, to get into an ambulance and go to hospital; a plaster is stuck on the injury and they go off about their business. However, I hope that the Minister can give us a pragmatic answer to avoid creating a new injustice in resolving the one that we identified in the Standing Committee.
	Amendment No. 12 limits the prohibition on charging for fires, so that fire authorities will be able to charge for fires under the sea—that is, in tunnels—or fires and rescues at sea. Can the Minister give us some information about that proposal? I understand that, at present, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has lead responsibility for rescue from fires at sea, which includes extinguishing them. What is the current practice on charging? From discussions with the Kent and Medway Towns fire authority, I know that the current interpretation of the 1947 Act is that it prevents charging for work carried out in relation to fires in the channel tunnel. None the less, there is an elaborate mechanism to allow the Kent and Medway combined authority to extract a substantial annual sum from the operators of the channel tunnel for providing cover for the tunnel. It would be useful if the Minister would clarify what the situation will be for the channel tunnel and other subsea structures, as well as how the amendment will affect rescue at sea? Government amendment No. 13 makes amendment No. 12 consistent with other parts of the Bill, by making it clear that references to "sea" are not restricted to sea within the territorial limits of the United Kingdom.
	I cannot believe that the British public want charges for emergency responses from our fire and rescue services. If we introduce charges for the attendance of the fire service at a major road accident, what will come next? Will we charge for the police to go to the scene of a burglary? Will we charge for cutting people out of a train wreck or plane crash, or for decontaminating them after a terrorist attack? I do not think so. That cannot be what the Government have in mind. So what is their refusal to limit the scope of charging all about? It is clear that it is about a desire to double charge motorists and to make them pay for a service for which they pay already through their council tax. I have asked the Minister once, and I ask him again, for a categorical undertaking that, if the Government will not accept our new clause, Britain's 27 million motorists and their insurers will not be charged by the fire and rescue services for emergency attendance at road traffic accidents. Anything less than such an undertaking will leave Britain's motorists in no doubt about what the Government have in mind for them: yet another stealth tax on law-abiding, insured drivers.

David Drew: Some of us on the Labour Benches thoroughly concur with some of what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has said, so we look forward to our right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government allaying our worst fears about what could happen. Of course, there is always the difficulty that we worry more about what might happen rather than what is likely to happen. In Standing Committee, we probably spent more time on clause 19 than on any other part of the Bill, although there was only one Division, despite the fact that several amendments were discussed.
	The problem for some of us is that the consultation paper is somewhat opaque. Some of us do not understand all the nuances of every last dot and comma of the Bill, and the consultation paper should have gone some way towards clarifying how the charging policy would work in practice. I may be alone, but I am not much the wiser about that, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assuage our fears about several things.
	We are concerned that the proposals would make the current ad hoc arrangements worse. Currently, some fire and rescue authorities can make a charge if they feel that a person's behaviour has resulted in gratuitous waste of their time and resources. However, we need some explanation of the proposals. Given that all three emergency services spend most of their time actually dealing with emergencies, I am not clear how there can be a process that settles in advance whether an incident is such that a charge should be levied on a motorist or a person who has the misfortune to be stuck in a lift. The proposals are a recipe for disaster unless we can lay the ghost of those fears and ensure that charges would not lead to problems in the future. I hope that my right hon. Friend will lay the ghosts completely so that we can move on. Charging must be put in its proper context—as a very small part of a much more important piece of legislation.

Richard Younger-Ross: I support much of what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has said, but I disagree with what he said about new clause 4—we disagreed on that in Committee. He has a great future in a Treasury team because he has the ability to double count figures in the same way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer does whenever there is an announcement on new Government spending—that is not meant as a compliment.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about double charging as if there will be two sets of charges, but that is blatantly not the case. If there is a system of charging in specific instances, the running costs of the relevant authority are reduced. If those costs are reduced, the charge to the taxpayer is thus reduced—the taxpayer does not pay in that instance. Double charging would occur only if the money raised disappeared or were wasted, and I do not believe that that will be the case.

Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how far the Liberal Democrats extend that thinking? Will they introduce charging throughout such areas as the national health service and the education sector?

Richard Younger-Ross: No. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman hypothesised that there would be a great roll-out of a programme through which the Government would charge for this, that and the other, but that is not the case. In the case of road traffic accidents, one can say that someone is to blame, so charges can be recovered from whoever is at fault. There was no one who could be said to be at fault or to blame in the other cases that he mentioned. He cited an aeroplane crash, but it would be difficult to determine with whom the fault lay in such a case. If terrorists blew up a plane, it would be almost impossible to recoup costs from those individuals. However, in the specific case of a road traffic accident, it is more than possible to recoup costs.

John Redwood: Is the hon. Gentleman thus saying that if people smoke too much against advice, they should have to pay for their lung cancer treatment?

Richard Younger-Ross: I am not saying that, but as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, people who smoke too much sometimes find it difficult to get certain forms of treatment because doctors are reluctant to treat them.
	We are considering a specific case in which someone is at fault. I understood that when the Conservative party was in power, it accepted the established principle that ambulances have always been able to charge for attending a road traffic accident. It is not unreasonable to extend the call-out charge for attending an RTA to firefighters. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge seems to be trying to create a new category of people whom he can support, and he seems to be creating a new category of victims.

Philip Hammond: Motorists—27 million of them.

Richard Younger-Ross: Yes, all of a sudden there is a concept that motorists are victims. Motorists sometimes do get a raw deal, and most of them feel that they are victims if they get parking or speeding tickets. However, it is not unreasonable for the person who was at fault for a road traffic accident to be expected to pay a charge for an emergency service to attend.
	I accept several of the concerns that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised. If a charging regime is to exist, we must be clear about what it is. Will the Minister define the limits of such a regime so that the fears—the irrational fears, I hope—that a great charging regime will suddenly exist can be laid to rest?

Philip Hammond: What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do about the increasingly large number of motorists who do not have insurance? The way in which the Government word the provisions suggests that they envisage avoiding that difficult problem by levying charges only on insurers, thus letting uninsured motorists—those who are breaking the law—get away scot-free.

Richard Younger-Ross: I accept that that is a valid point. Uninsured people should be expected to pay the charges, but a problem would arise if they were not able to afford them. We need a new system to stop people driving without insurance. I would need to talk to our transport spokesman to find out what our exact policy is on that, but other systems, such as displaying evidence of insurance in car windscreens, might be a way of dealing with the problem. It is of course wrong for people not to be insured and to get away with it, but that is not what we are debating. The hon. Gentleman cites the example of people escaping payment, but that argument is rather like saying that as some people avoid paying tax, we should not pay tax. That argument is nonsense, and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows it.

John Redwood: I support new clause 4, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) argued his case powerfully. I was shocked when I read the Bill and realised that it would enable the Minister or his successors to authorise charges for rescuing people caught up in terrible accidents. The mind boggles as to how that might take place. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that when the fire service arrived on the scene, there would have to be negotiation with victims on how they would pay? Would they have to show a credit card or carry cash, or would they be allowed to defer payment? Would they be able to argue over the price? Would they get a quote in advance, or would they have to pay whatever bill was sent to them and their insurers after the rescue?
	My hon. Friend made a powerful point in response to an intervention that I made. I was thinking of a poor victim who desperately needed to be rescued from his or her vehicle and perhaps needed to be taken to the local hospital. Such victims would be in no condition to think through such matters and would agree to any charge that might be made thereafter. However, my hon. Friend cited the even more difficult case of a person who needed to get out of his or her vehicle, but was in no immediate pain or danger. Such people might well want to shop around and use a mobile phone to find out whether a private sector contractor could arrive in a reasonable time and do the job more cheaply. The fire service would presumably have to give them a quote, so the whole situation would become laughable.
	I speak as someone who wants less government, lower taxes, far fewer quangos, officials and regulations, and far less intervention in daily life than currently exists under the Government. However, there must be a core of public services that we, the taxpayers, get free in return for our massive taxes. If I had to set out a shortlist—it would be a much shorter list than that which the Government produce for us against our will—of things that should be supplied free at the point of use and paid for by the enormous tax revenues that are collected, the service that we are discussing would be high up the list. I would want good defence, criminal justice and emergency services that worked when we were in need of emergency service provision. I cannot believe that a Labour Government, who raise so much money from us all and mug the motorist every day with their massive fuel taxes, licence fees, hidden taxation on motoring and congestion charges, can have the audacity to come to the House with the measure and to take it through Committee without understanding just how much people will hate the proposal and how wrong people would think it to have to pay a fee at the point of accidents such as those that I described. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) speaks up for good, honest Labour Back Benchers who are as shocked as I am to see the Minister coming before the House, without any shame on his face, to demand payment in such dreadful circumstances.
	When the Minister responds to the debate, he may well argue that he does not wish to impose charges on all people in the dreadful circumstances that I described. Of course, he could point out that, under the Bill, he would have to authorise a charge before one could be imposed, but I am worried about not only the Minister, but his possible successor before the election. I am not sure who that might be if he is replaced in a reshuffle. I think that he should be promoted to the Cabinet, but he is far too competent for that. We know that competence is not valued in gaining promotion to this Government, so he may be moved sideways. The next Minister—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make his remarks germane to the amendment rather than to people's promotion prospects.

John Redwood: I stand suitably corrected, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The amendment addresses the charging regime. I am worried that, if we leave the Bill unamended and do not listen to the common sense of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, we could have a Minister who authorises charges in the awful circumstances that I described.

Richard Younger-Ross: How can the right hon. Gentleman justify his statements, given that his party's policies resulted in charging people for eye and dental check-ups?

John Redwood: All parties have gone along with that policy, and this Government have gone further than the previous Government in privatising dentistry. I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker would regard that as way wide of the amendment, which relates to the idea that a Minister could impose charges in the difficult circumstances that we are discussing.
	The Minister will also argue that he aims to charge insurance companies rather than the victims of the accidents. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge explained that the people most likely to get into accidents are those who steal cars or drive without proper licences and insurance, and they will not be covered by the proposal. That is grossly unfair, especially if the innocent victim of such an accident is on the road legally and has insurance. Would the innocent victim's insurance company end up paying for that accident and would his no-claims bonus disappear?

Philip Hammond: Equally bad is the Government's plan to extend the levy that insurers have to pay to meet the costs of uninsured drivers to cover this scheme, imposing a still greater burden on law-abiding drivers. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will contemplate that.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. I was about to say that the burden will undoubtedly fall, as it always does, on the law-abiding decent motorist, who will pay the bill one way or another.
	The Minister will know of the proposals before the European Union, which will doubtless come into effect, that will force up the price of insurance for younger women and middle-aged men, who have better driving records than others, in the false name of equality. He is asking us to approve another proposal that will sandbag and increase insurance costs for all motorists on top of the dangerous legislation that is about to come into effect that will tackle two groups that, on average tend, to drive rather better than others—something that should be reflected in their premiums. I hope that he understands just how badly motorists will view a further major increase in their premium cost, which will be a direct result of the Bill if he is foolish enough to reject my hon. Friend's excellent amendment.
	Motorists have had enough of this Government. They have been sandbagged, taxed and treated extremely badly by them. This is yet another measure in that campaign. If the Minister wishes to win the votes of motorists at the election, he should back off tonight and support my hon. Friend.

John McDonnell: I take up where my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) left off and seek clarity on the document circulated by my right hon. Friend the Minister. The letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), the co-Chairman of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, includes the consultation paper on secondary legislation. Item 8 of the annexe on page 13 deals with a critical issue that will cause consternation across the country. It could make or break a Government, let alone an individual Minister. It is the issue of cats up trees.
	On the rescue of animals, it is current practice in the majority of authorities for the rescue of animals to be effected free of charge. Item 8 states:
	"Current practice in the majority of authorities that do charge for animal rescues"
	is that
	"some draw a distinction between domestic animals and livestock but as this is not universal practice we do not propose to include such a distinction in the Order."
	So the person to be charged is the owner or keeper of the animal concerned. That introduces a charging policy for fire brigades that, altruistically and with clear commitment to animal rights and good husbandry, turn up to remove a cat from a tree. What happens if the cat does not have a collar? Do we impound the cat? If we impound it, at what point does it become dispensable—

David Drew: Disposable.

John McDonnell: Indeed. When does the cat become disposable? What happens when we cannot identify who has called the fire brigade? What if there is no owner or keeper? Does the onus fall on the person who made the emergency call-out for that fire service?

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an important point. What if the cat did not need or want rescuing? The cat may not be able to explain that to the fire brigade in attendance. The owner might be traced later and he could take exception to paying to rescue a cat that was perfectly happy up a tree.

John McDonnell: The proposal clearly contradicts the new line of policy of choice developed at the Labour party spring conference over the weekend and completely contradicts the policies pursued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We need clarity on the matter. It is one of the anomalies on charging policy that will cause consternation and political reaction across the land.

Nick Raynsford: I shall try to bring us back to a calm environment after the flights of fantasy of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who took us into a distant land. I noted his kind remarks about my position. I am grateful for them. On the day that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has, for whatever reason, sadly resigned from the shadow Cabinet, taking a great chunk of expertise, skill and decency from that body, I suspect a touch of frustration on the part of the right hon. Member for Wokingham that he has not been offered a promotion as part of the consequent reshuffle. He must feel very unloved by his party.
	Amendment No. 2 would remove the prohibition on charging for extinguishing fires and protecting life and property in the event of fire. The Fire Services Act 1947 prohibits fire authorities from charging for their response to fires. We have sought to continue such a prohibition in clause 19(2). To do otherwise would be to extend significantly the scope of the charging arrangements. I am sure that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) intends that his amendment should be read with new clause 4, in which he seeks to extend the range of services for which a charge cannot be levied.
	New clause 4 would extend the restrictions on the services for which a charge might be made. Subsection (1)(a) replicates the restriction that the Government included in the Bill when it was introduced. However, subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) would also apply to road traffic accidents at which there was no incidence of fire and to a variety of other emergency situations.
	The new clause would not cover the circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned relating to animal welfare. We debated those in Committee, but the amendments do not cover that subject. We propose to make no change to existing arrangements under which some fire and rescue authorities make charges for animal rescue. We do not think that it is right to make arbitrary changes without full consultation and discussion. I assure him that we are essentially preserving the status quo.
	With the passage of time, from the position that existed under the 1947 Act, the fire and rescue service has acquired a great deal of experience and skill in dealing with the effects of road traffic accidents, even though there has been no obligation on the service to render rescue assistance. We have introduced a new duty for the service to respond to such incidents in clause 8, recognising the reality and putting on a proper statutory footing the responsibilities of the fire and rescue service.
	At the same time, we have recognised that fire authorities already have a power to charge for dealing with the non-fire assistance rendered at such an incident, although to the best of our knowledge they have not made use of it. The order-making provision in clause 19 will allow us to ensure that there is no move towards charging for road traffic accidents or other incidents without further detailed consultation, while preserving the principle of being able to charge for such incidents if it is appropriate. That is entirely consistent with my explanation that we are simply preserving the status quo.
	It is pure scaremongering on the part of the Opposition to imply that we intend to sting motorists. We have no such intention. As I have emphasised, we are simply preserving the status quo. What we will not do is rule out any arrangements similar to those operated by ambulance trusts to recover some costs in some circumstances—generally, of course, from insurers. That policy might come forward as a result of further consideration. We certainly would not want to rule it out if there were strong, sensible reasons for adopting it. We have no plans to do so; it is not part of our agenda, but we will not rule out arrangements that might command support in the wider fire community.
	I am not clear why the Opposition believe that, in all cases, including those where there is clear fault, the cost of dealing with such incidents should always be borne by the taxpayer rather than the responsible party. That is a recipe for increasing the costs to be met by council tax payers. People thinking about factors behind rising council tax will draw conclusions from the Opposition's stance on the issue. Conservatives Members may complain about council tax levels, but in trying to make it impossible for fire and rescue services to recover the costs of certain incidents, some of which I shall explore in a moment, they are essentially proposing the transfer of costs in some circumstances from the polluters, insurers or parties responsible for those costs to the general taxpayer. I should not have thought that such a principle would be easy for Conservatives to defend in the wider debate about keeping down council tax. I look forward to engaging with them in that debate.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge may claim that we are proposing changes that could result in considerable increases in insurance premiums for 27 million motorists, but I must tell him, as I did in Committee, that Transport 2000 has estimated that the impact on the average premium of arrangements to mirror those operated by the NHS would be around £3 a year. He is really wide of the mark in scaremongering on that.
	The recent Select Committee report on the fire service noted the potential for authorities to recover from compensators the costs of dealing with traffic accidents in a manner similar to that in the NHS. We believe that further work is needed on how any such scheme might operate for the fire and rescue service, and on the impact that it would have on authorities, the insurance industry and the public. Those further investigations should be conducted before any proposal is made, let alone introduced. In the light of that, we do not think that it would be appropriate to close off the possibility of charging, as countenanced in new clause 4. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) the reassurance that he is seeking. We certainly have no plans to extend charging for services delivered by fire and rescue authorities, but we are aware that some authorities currently levy charges for certain activities and we are certainly not going to cut off those options arbitrarily, as the new clause proposes.
	We are equally aware that some fire and rescue authorities have given thought to when they might wish to charge for various activities. The independent report on the fire service—the Bain report—gave some impetus to that thinking. Any such proposal should be very carefully evaluated from an operational and a financial point of view, and we should consider taking it forward only if its introduction could be carried through without in any way compromising public safety. Public safety will always remain our absolute priority and the overriding consideration. Nevertheless, we certainly would not want to close off options entirely.

David Drew: I am largely reassured, but let me give the Minister one example of how we could get into difficulty. On nice summer afternoons, at the many fêtes and bazaars that we all attend and open, there is often a fire engine, which is usually popular with children. We will surely never get into the realms of charging for the presence of such appliances, which is often the most effective education about the fire service. That is the danger if we consider charging for things that are not deemed emergencies. Will my right hon. Friend clarify that?

Nick Raynsford: I am sure that we would want fire and rescue authorities to continue precisely such activities free of charge for public education purposes, but my hon. Friend will know that fire and rescue services might be asked to provide water-pumping facilities for some commercial activity, for which it is entirely reasonable to recover a charge. We would not want to rule that out. If authorities are not promoting public safety but providing a useful ancillary service, recovering costs would be entirely proper and reasonable.
	I put it to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that the range of incidents that may fall within the provisions of clause 9 is not confined simply to the new terrorist threat. It can include major incidents of flooding or damage caused by accidental or negligent discharge by a company of a large volume of harmful chemicals. New clause (1)(c) would exclude such incidents from the scope of charging. Is it right that a major commercial undertaking that is responsible for massive pollution and consequent disruption should escape any possibility of being charged for the work of the fire and rescue service in dealing with such an incident? What message would such a prohibition on cost recovery give to potential polluters and to council tax payers? Is the hon. Gentleman so confident that, as he said, it is unthinkable for charges to be levied in such circumstances? If so, would the Opposition spokesman for environmental protection agree?
	The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wokingham asked about the possibility of charging in an emergency. There is absolutely no intention of charging to extract payment before taking emergency action to save life or prevent serious harm. On the possibility raised by the hon. Gentleman that, owing to the Government amendment, a road traffic accident victim would hope that the fire service would attend first, neither the fire and rescue service nor the ambulance service charges for medical assistance. The ambulance service charges for conveyance to hospital. That is its appropriate role, and not one for the fire and rescue service.

John Redwood: Will the Minister write that assurance into the Bill so that all can see that authorities will never charge in such circumstances?

Nick Raynsford: That assurance has been given on the Floor of the House and previously, and will remain the case. The right hon. Gentleman knows, as he referred to it, that the Bill contains powers under which the Secretary of State must authorise any extension of charging, so if there were any question of varying from that principle, we would be open immediately to scrutiny of whether we were upholding it.
	I understand that Conservative Members may fear that every person unfortunate enough to suffer a tidal surge may find themselves confronted with a bill for pumping out, but in many cases such people will have building and contents insurance. If it is felt appropriate to charge for such activity, clause 19(3) might be used to allow authorities to recover from insurers the costs of responding to flooding incidents.

Philip Hammond: The Minister is talking about pumping out. Is he giving a categorical assurance that the powers will never be used to levy a charge for rescuing people from flooded buildings?

Nick Raynsford: Yes.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister give a similar categorical assurance that the provisions will never be used to levy a charge for rescuing people from cars after a road accident?

Nick Raynsford: I have already made that absolutely clear and I am happy to do so again. As I have repeatedly said, all that we are doing is preserving the status quo under which, as the hon. Gentleman knows because he has studied the matter carefully, the 1947 Act, which prohibits charges, applies only to the extinguishment of fires. As he rightly pointed out, there is scope for charging for other services. In general, fire and rescue authorities have not levied charges—some have for certain activities—and we are not intending to cut across those arrangements. We are implementing a framework that will ensure that, if there are to be charges for any service, they should be determined by the Secretary of State and subject to the Secretary of State's agreement by order, which can be considered by this House. That is the proper and necessary safeguard.

Philip Hammond: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me and to listen. It has always been our intention that there should be no question of charging for rescuing people from road traffic accidents or, indeed, from life-threatening situations, including flooding.
	New clause 4(2) is designed to ensure that fire and rescue authorities are not empowered to charge for providing emergency medical assistance where there is no corresponding power for an NHS ambulance trust to impose such a charge. I agree with the sentiment behind the provision. In Committee, I offered to table an amendment to that effect if the hon. Gentleman would accept that there were situations in which it was right for fire authorities to levy charges. He declined my offer. I think that he is wrong, but I have tabled the amendment none the less and in terms that offer greater reassurance to the public than would his own, which I ask him to withdraw.
	Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13 correct an omission from the Bill. The 1947 Act was amended, with effect from September 2003, to allow fire and rescue authorities to charge for firefighting activities at sea. The power of an authority to respond to such a request for assistance had been introduced under the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997. The 1947 Act as originally enacted did not allow for a charge to be made for any firefighting purpose, but nor did it enable an authority to use its resources to assist in dealing with a fire offshore. There was considerable concern among salvage operators that such a power should exist and they and marine insurers were content to bear the cost. It is not surprising that they should prefer to pay for a service that an authority was not obliged to provide than risk the total loss of a vessel. It is right that the Bill should contain a similar provision and that the cost of such an intervention should not be expected to fall on the budget of an authority as a normal expense.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned the channel tunnel. As I pointed out in Committee, the tunnel is in the happy position of being notionally part of Kent for firefighting purposes—it is not treated as a place under the sea. The Government amendment makes no change to that conceptually difficult position.
	Government amendment No. 12 also fulfils an offer made in Committee and goes further than the amendment tabled there by the hon. Gentleman. It prohibits charging for any emergency medical assistance and requires no linkage to NHS arrangements. I commend the Government amendments to the House.

Philip Hammond: I have sought to protect the interests of 27 million motorists in Britain, but must admit that I have been clearly trumped by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) defending the interests of animal lovers in Britain. God knows how many millions of those there are—certainly more than there are motorists.
	I am not entirely clear about what the Minister just said. I sought a commitment that the powers under clause 19 would never be used to authorise charging for the discharge in an emergency of any of the statutory functions of a fire and rescue authority, and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman confirmed that in the last few minutes of his speech. If he can now confirm that he will never, in any circumstances, use clause 19 to authorise charging in an emergency for the discharge of any of the statutory functions of a fire and rescue authority, I shall be happy to withdraw the new clause.

Nick Raynsford: No, I cannot do so. As I clearly explained, we can envisage emergencies, such as pollution incidents, arising in circumstances in which we believe it would be entirely appropriate to charge. My point, which I repeat, is that we do not in any circumstances envisage fire and rescue services failing to take action to rescue someone in an emergency, such as road traffic accident or flooding, simply because a charging regime has been introduced. That is unthinkable. The services will rescue people immediately—that will be their primary priority. If there were a charging regime, that would come into effect afterward, but it would certainly not affect the decision on whether to effect a rescue.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has clearly been called to order by voices off. That is not what he said a few minutes ago, when I understood him to have given us the reassurance that we sought—that there would never be charges for emergency intervention. If he is saying only that the services will not ask for a credit card before carrying out the rescue, that is wholly inadequate.
	On behalf of this country's 27 million motorists and all those who live in low-lying areas and have to worry about flooding, we seek an assurance that they will not be charged for the discharge in an emergency of the statutory functions of fire and rescue authorities. The Minister told my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) that it is difficult to square our insistence that emergency services be provided free with concerns about increasing council tax. I say to him that I suspect that most of our constituents would put emergency response in such situations very high on the list of things that they feel should be provided free of charge by a public service.
	The Opposition believe that it is fundamentally wrong to introduce any possibility of charging for emergency response in the discharge of a statutory function. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause and to protect motorists throughout the country.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 317.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Regional Management Structures

'(1) The Secretary of State shall within 12 months of the coming into force of any part of this Act:
	(a) commission an independent study to establish the optimum geographical areas within England for the organisation of fire and rescue services; and
	(b) commission an independent study of the impact of any existing regional management structures on:
	(i) operational effectiveness of fire and rescue services, and
	(ii) cost-effectiveness of fire and rescue services, and
	(iii) management capability of fire and rescue authorities.
	(2) Upon receipt of the reports of the studies referred to in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall cause those reports to be published.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 9—Limitation on power of Secretary of State to appoint members of a combined fire and rescue authority—
	'(1) Where a scheme made under section 2 provides for members of a combined fire and rescue authority to be appointed by the Secretary of State the provisions of this section shall apply.
	(2) Before making an appointment to a combined fire and rescue authority the Secretary of State shall invite each of the existing authorities with power to appoint members to the combined fire and rescue authority to submit to him a list of nominees for consideration for appointment by the Secretary of State.
	(3) The Secretary of State shall appoint from the lists of nominees received those persons who appear to him to be best qualified to serve as members of the combined fire and rescue authority unless there are an insufficient number of persons on the lists appearing to the Secretary of State to be suitable for appointment.
	(4) If the Secretary of State considers that there are an insufficient number of suitable persons on the lists to make all the necessary appointments he shall advise each of the existing authorities of his reasons for considering each of their unsuccessful nominees as unsuitable for appointment and shall indicate the qualities, experience and other relevant factors required for appointment by the Secretary of State in the particular case.
	(5) Each of the existing authorities shall then be invited to submit a further list of nominees fulfilling the criteria set down in accordance with subsection (4) by the Secretary of State.
	(6) Upon receipt of the further lists referred to in subsection (5) the Secretary of State shall appoint from the lists those persons who appear to him to be best qualified to serve as members of the combined fire and rescue authority.
	(7) If there are insufficient numbers of persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be suitably qualified for appointment on the lists submitted, the Secretary of State may appoint such other persons as he considers suitable to fill any remaining vacancy.
	(8) On the occurrance of any casual vacancy for membership of a fire and rescue authority which falls under the terms of the scheme to be filled by an appointment by the Secretary of State the procedure set out in subsections (2) to (7) shall apply.'.
	Amendment No. 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 14, after 'Act', insert
	'that one or more fire and rescue authorities are failing to discharge their duties and this Act and'.
	Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 16, leave out from 'area' to end of line 18.
	Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 17, leave out from 'constitutes' to end of line 18 and insert
	'an area identified by the study published by the Secretary of State in accordance with section [regional management structures] as an optimum geographical area for the organisation of fire and rescue services.'.
	Amendment No. 22, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
	', or
	(c) that a draft scheme has been submitted to him by two or more existing authorities and it appears to the Secretary of State that for the purposes of this Act, in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness, there should be a single fire and rescue authority for the combined area.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
	Amendment No. 23, in clause 3, page 3, line 40, leave out 'half' and insert 'one third'.
	Government amendments Nos. 9 to 11.

Philip Hammond: This wide-ranging group of amendments deals with combined fire authorities and much more besides. New clause 5 is drawn widely and touches on all fire authorities in England with the exception of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. It addresses the compulsory and arbitrary regionalisation of fire and rescue services on the basis of the existing regional development agency or Government office regions. The Select Committee looked at the Government's proposals on regionalisation and said in paragraph 81 of its report:
	"The draft Framework emphasises the importance of local solutions to local needs, and highlights that there is no national blueprint. Yet Fire Services and Authorities appear to have no choice about adopting a regional approach."
	We have always accepted that there is a case for harvesting the efficiencies of co-operation by doing certain things at supra-brigade level, but that must be a bottom-up process that starts with individual fire authorities collaborating together, not a top-down process in which the Secretary of State directs fire authorities to work in certain ways. It must be driven, not by the Secretary of State's demands but by the accountability of fire and rescue authorities to local taxpayers and by their best-value obligations. That is already happening, but not necessarily on the geographical boundaries that Ministers seek.
	We accept the case for common procurement to ensure interoperability and the need to co-ordinate the response to non-conventional threats at a higher level than that of the individual brigade. None of those arguments, however, points to the Government-dictated organisation of fire and rescue services along the geographical lines of Government office regions. Fire and rescue services are a local government function and, under modernisation, are charged with becoming more of a community service. They must be managed and run closer to, not further away, from the local community that they serve. We must never forget that even in the environment in which, sadly, we now find ourselves, at least 90 per cent. of a fire and rescue authority's work will continue to be performing community-based traditional roles as well as the new, important role of fire prevention and education.
	The Government have not produced a shred of evidence to establish the benefit to public safety of choosing the structure of existing Government office regions as the basis for imposing regional management boards, the use of those regions as the basis for the combined fire authorities of the future or, indeed, the reduction of the 49 existing control rooms to just nine in England. The Select Committee report, with which the Minister will be familiar, makes that clear at paragraph 79, which states:
	"The key argument in the White Paper for a regional approach appears to be cost efficiency".
	It goes on to say at paragraph 80:
	"The White Paper does not explain how a regional approach would improve public safety, and help Government achieve its Service Delivery Agreement targets. Nor does it provide evidence that a regional approach would reduce bureaucratic overheads."
	We need convincing evidence that the regions chosen by the Government are the optimum regions for fire and rescue purposes and will not merely reduce costs but meet the Government's avowed criterion of improving public safety.
	The report on control rooms does not look at the possibility of any other configuration of those rooms. If a control room can handle adequately the entire south-east of England, with a population of 8 million, why has the Minister not considered combining the north-east region with Yorkshire and the Humber to create a region with a population of about 7.5 million? The Government have not explained why is it right and appropriate to have one control room in the north-east region with a population of 2.5 million spread over 8,000 sq km, and one control room in the south-east region with a population of 8 million spread over 19,500 sq km?
	Resilience, which the Minister often talks about, will be achieved by common equipment and operating standards. The reduction of 49 control rooms to nine is about saving costs. There is nothing wrong with saving costs—I am not suggesting for a moment that that is not a good objective—but it is not the Secretary of State's role to deal with such matters in a locally based, locally accountable service. He should deal with resilience, but economy of operation should be dealt with under the best-value arrangements and through the accountability of democratically elected fire and rescue authorities to their local electorates. The truth is that the Deputy Prime Minister has been scratching around to try to find some powers for his pet regional tier to counter the repeated accusation that it is a hollow promise or empty box. The fire and rescue services are being regionalised by stealth through the regional management boards, the inevitable withering of the management capability of individual fire and rescue authorities and by the regional fire authorities that the Secretary of State will impose on any region that elects to have a regional assembly in a referendum. Incidentally, that demonstrates the untruth of the Government's repeated statement that any extra powers given to elected regional assemblies will be handed down from central Government, not drawn up from local government. Those extra powers will clearly come from a diminution of local government power and responsibility.
	It is not appropriate to organise a vital, front-line emergency service around the political whim of a politician. We will never accept that public safety should be subordinated to the Government's regional agenda through the imposition of a sub-optimal regional structure. I emphasise again that we object not to the introduction of a supra-brigade level for certain purposes but to the transparently political use of existing Government office regions—[Interruption.] The Minister says that it is a lot of nonsense, but he has not produced a shred of evidence to support the argument that those are the optimum regions for the operational delivery of fire and rescue services.

Nick Raynsford: I repeatedly told the hon. Gentleman in Committee—I am surprised that he did not hear—that in each of the Government office regions we have regional resilience forums, which ensure that we have the best possible resilience to cope with terrorist threats and other emergencies. How can he possibly suggest that it does not make strong operational sense to align the boundaries of the fire and rescue services' work in that regard with those of the regional resilience forums?

Philip Hammond: What the Minister is seeking to do is reorganise the work of fire and rescue authorities, 90 per cent.-plus of which will be carrying out the community-based role that they have to perform along Government office region lines. He has never sought to evaluate—I stand to be corrected if he can produce some evidence, but I have never seen it—the most appropriate geographical arrangements for the delivery of a supra-brigade level.

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had read the White Paper, he would know that we spelled out very clearly a definition of what responsibilities needed to be discharged at a national level, a regional level and a local level, including the community fire safety work. That underpins our proposals.

Philip Hammond: That is very interesting, but it does not answer the accusation that the regions that have been selected for political purposes are self-evidently not the most appropriate ones for the delivery of fire and rescue services.

Nick Raynsford: rose—

Philip Hammond: If the Minister wishes to intervene again, perhaps he will explain why the most appropriate unit for organisation of the fire and rescue service in the north-east has a population of 2.5 million spread over 8,000 sq km, while in the south-west, it is a unit with a geographical extent of 23,000 sq km, and in the south-east, it is a unit with a population of 8 million.

Nick Raynsford: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that it is because it is essential for operational needs that there is clear contiguity between the regional resilience forums and the fire and rescue service. That is very much about public safety. Will he now please withdraw the entirely unjustified allegation that this is a political arrangement? It is not such an arrangement because it is about public safety and the best arrangements that we can make to guarantee us against the risk of terrorism and other serious incidents.

Philip Hammond: I do not remember the Minister rushing to the Dispatch Box to withdraw the inappropriate accusation that he made against me earlier in the debate, and I did not press the point at the time. I shall not withdraw my concern that one of the driving forces for the Government in taking this route and using the organisational units is that that approach fits extremely well with another important political initiative by the Department—the promotion of the regional structure in Britain.
	If the Minister were to commission from Mott MacDonald or whoever else an independent report of the sort suggested by new clause 5, asking what the optimal sub-national organisation of England would be—we are now talking only about England—for operational fire and rescue purposes, it is theoretically possible that the answer would be a structure of 8,000 sq km in the north-east and 23,000 sq km in the south-west, with 2.5 million people in the north-east and 8 million people in the south-east. However, I very much doubt that that would happen, as it flies in the face of all intuition and logic. In the absence of such a report, I am deeply sceptical. That is why new clause 5 seeks to require that an independent study be carried out on the optimal organisational units for fire and rescue purposes. If those units are the Government office regions, fine, but I am prepared to bet that an independent report would find otherwise.
	The new clause would also require an independent study to be carried out on the impact of the existing regional structure. That will be a structure of regional management boards and any regional combined fire authorities that the Minister has created at the time when the study is conducted. That is the best that we can do within the structure of the Bill, as the regional management boards are not created by the provisions, but are part of the national framework document.
	If the proposed reports were carried out, they would show whether there is a better way of organising supra-brigade level activity and whether the Government office regions structure is really a cost-effective way of organising fire and rescue services, as well as what impact it is having on fire and rescue authority management capability, which appears likely inevitably to wither as a result of the transfer of responsibilities up to regional management boards.
	That process would be entirely objective. If the Minister is confident that the best interests of public safety are served by the Government office regions and that they are the best and most appropriate units of organisation, he has nothing to fear in accepting the new clause and commissioning an independent report, so that we can all see some independent underpinning of the Government's position and some basis for his repeated assertion, which flies in the face of intuition, that this structure of organisation has not been adopted because it ties in with the ODPM's other agenda of regional government. The public would then be able to see for themselves whether the structure is designed primarily to enhance public safety rather than to advance the Deputy Prime Minister's regional agenda.
	Amendments Nos. 3 and 14 address another frankly outrageous or preposterous—I shall put it that way, as that is the Minister's favourite word—provision: clause 2(2)(b). That provision allows the Secretary of State to create new combined fire and rescue authorities if efficiency, effectiveness and economy demand that he does so. That is fine, but it is not the case if the combined fire and rescue authority that he wishes to create is one whose boundaries coincide with those of a regional development agency region. In that case, he does not have to demonstrate that creating the authority will be in the interests of efficiency, effectiveness and economy; he can proceed with no hurdles and no best value criteria to be met. That seems a scandalous misuse of public responsibility, and amendment No. 3 would allow a combined fire authority for a region to be created without hurdles only if it was for a region identified in the report that would be required under new clause 5 as an optimum region—a region that, by definition, is the most appropriate one for the delivery of fire and rescue services.
	If the Government reject new clause 5, amendment No. 14 offers an alternative route, as it seeks to delete all together the special treatment for a regional combined fire authority and to make all new combined fire authorities subject to the criteria set out in clause 2(2)(a).
	New clause 9 addresses a different issue. It seeks to limit one of the extraordinary powers of the Secretary of State under the Bill. The power to create a combined fire and rescue authority mirrors the power under the 1947 Act to create a combined fire authority, but the power to appoint 50 per cent. of the members of that authority, minus one, is new. While protesting that fire and rescue remain a local service, the Government are not only grafting on a regional structure, but displaying their usual centralising instinct by taking draconian powers to appoint the members. Deployment of the power will fundamentally alter the nature of democratic accountability in these local services. If the Secretary of State can deploy the power to appoint 49 per cent. of members, the political balance in a combined fire authority, which might be an elected regional assembly area fire authority, will always be capable of being overturned by the Secretary of State's appointments. That seems a step too far in what is still supposed to be a democratically accountable service.
	The Secretary of State will say that he needs the power to appoint as a reserve power in case fire and rescue authorities do not nominate people of what he considers high enough calibre.

Nick Raynsford: Yes.

Philip Hammond: Well, that is a bit of an arrogance. These are democratically elected local authorities.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee, whose work the hon. Gentleman so frequently quotes, made very early the point that the calibre of members appointed to fire and rescue authorities was not always of the highest. Does he recognise that there may be some truth in that, and that if there is a problem, it is appropriate to think about how the calibre of fire authorities could be enhanced?

Philip Hammond: The Minister puts his point in very reasonable terms, and if he listens, he will see that I recognise the possibility of his needing the reserve power. That does not alter the preposterousness of suggesting that whenever the electorate choose badly Ministers can intervene. Where will it end? If people choose duff councillors, does he want to be able to intervene and replace them? That is the clear implication. What about duff MPs? Those are not unknown. Does he want to intervene and appoint new Members of Parliament?
	The Minister quoted the Select Committee Chairman on Second Reading and in Committee and said that he thought there was a problem, and I aired those concerns at the recent LGA fire conference—they did not go down very well with the local government members there.
	New clause 9 sets out a procedure to ensure that any Secretary of State appointment is only a last resort, when no appropriate nominees are offered by the appointing authority. We may have an objection in principle to such a power of appointment, but the new clause is drafted in a spirit of compromise, recognising the argument that reserve powers may be needed. Combined fire authority members are appointed by the authorities that would be fire authorities if not for the existence of the combined fire authority. Under the new clause, in circumstances in which the scheme gives the Secretary of State powers to appoint, he has to exercise them by taking names from lists submitted to him by those underlying authorities. Furthermore, if he does not believe that there are sufficient suitable people on the list, he can specify reasons for rejecting any of the nominees and ask the authorities to submit a further list, reflecting criteria that he has set down in his rejection.
	I honestly do not think that I could have been more accommodating in wording new clause 9. Only if the second set of lists that the Secretary of State receives from the appointing authorities contains insufficient numbers of what he believes to be suitable candidates can he use the reserve power to appoint someone who is not on a list. That introduces some objectivity, local input and transparency to the process, because he has to account for his rejections. As rejection can be made only on grounds of suitability, there is scope for a challenge to his decisions.
	The Minister is no doubt preparing a defence that this is all impossibly complex and will take too long, but there is a good analogy with the arrangements in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, under which the Secretary of State selects a shortlist from a longlist submitted to him by local bodies, and then refers that shortlist back to the police authority to make the final appointment: a three-stage process that has not proved impossibly cumbersome but ensures proper interaction between the powers of the Secretary of State and the important role of local stakeholders.
	The Minister has made it clear that if an elected regional assembly is set up in any region, he will appoint a combined fire authority for that region. I understood him to intend that it would be members of the elected regional assembly who would effectively make up the combined fire authority, but clause 3(3)(a) refers only to
	"the appointment of members by the existing authorities"—
	that is, the existing fire and rescue authorities as defined in clause 1—
	"or by the Secretary of State".
	There is no reference to elected regional assemblies having the power to appoint. Will he clarify the mechanics? I hope that the idea is not that the Secretary of State will simply make the appointments on some informal consultation.
	Government amendments Nos. 7 to 11 give effect to a concession that the Minister made in Committee. They impose a requirement for an inquiry prior to the creation of a new combined fire authority or the variation or revocation of an existing authority established under the 1947 Act, except where the underlying authorities are all in agreement, or the combined authority is created as a result of local government reorganisation, or the Minister considers that the need for reorganisation is urgent.
	Of course we accept that things can be urgent and that circumstances can change quickly, but it is difficult to envisage a situation in which public safety would require a management restructuring without delay. The Secretary of State has many powers under the Bill to intervene in an emergency or where an authority is failing. He can direct them to do or not do things, to share equipment and to take responsibility for each other's functions. It is almost inconceivable that in a real emergency the solution would be to alter the management structure and change the shape of the authority. That cannot be done overnight, and frankly a new fire authority cannot be instantly effective just because a Minister says that it should be.
	Does the Minister have examples that support the need for that final exemption from the requirement for a public inquiry? I should say, however, not to be churlish, that this concession is worth noting as one of the few positive changes that the Government have been prepared to accept, and we are grateful for what we consider a significant additional protection.
	Amendment No. 21 would introduce a test of failure by a fire and rescue authority before the Secretary of State can create a combined authority. With the exception of the circumstances of local government reorganisation, which is a pretty big exception, I agree with what the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) is seeking to do through that amendment. I also agree that there is no such requirement in the Bill. However, the amendment does not address the fact that most if not all combined authorities to date have been created as a result of local government reorganisation, which clearly should be recognised.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there is a difference between failing in discharging statutory functions and the Secretary of State perceiving that there may be additional things that could be done differently or something that he does not like about how the authority operates. It is a difference of degree, and intervention by the Secretary of State is appropriate in the one case but not in the other. I therefore have a great deal of sympathy with amendment No. 21.
	Amendment No. 22 sets out the voluntary route to a combined fire authority. Let me put a difficult case to the hon. Member for Teignbridge. If an elected regional assembly were established in any of the English regions, some fire authorities in the region might try to create a combined authority as an alternative to a regional combined fire and rescue authority. How would the hon. Gentleman respond to such an initiative? Would he support it in the interests of localism or abandon Liberal Democrat principles of many years to support the party's more recent desire to snuggle up to the Government as they promote their regional agenda? Does he support local authorities' right to retain their independence if they choose to do that? Amendment No. 22 could be used to achieve that.
	I hope that amendment No. 23 is not an attempt at compromise. If it is wrong for the Secretary of State to appoint half the members of an authority, it is wrong for the Secretary of State to appoint a third. Since I am feeling charitable, I shall interpret amendment No. 23 as being complementary to and not a substitute for new clause 9 so that when all its safety-net provisions were accepted, the hon. Gentleman would still like the Secretary of State to be limited to appointing a third of the members of a new combined fire authority. I hope that that interpretation is correct. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will reassure hon. Members about that.

Richard Younger-Ross: First, let me emphasise that Liberal Democrats have a clear commitment to the regions. That is why we tabled an amendment in Committee to give broader powers to an elected regional assembly. We would give the powers for fire services to such an assembly. The Bill makes such provision for Wales but, sadly, the Government and Conservative Members decided to reject a measure to devolve power from the centre to the regions in England. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pointed out earlier, there is a tendency to take powers up to regional level rather than from the top down.

Philip Hammond: We could not support the amendment that the hon. Gentleman tabled in Committee partly because it would have given each region a responsibility for preparing a national framework.

Richard Younger-Ross: It dealt with a regional framework, but there may have been glitches in the parliamentary language. The hon. Gentleman was always quick to point out that the Government have far more resources to spend on drafting than Conservative Members do. I never complained in Committee about our lack of resources or the Short money that the Conservative party receives to help it. I simply stress that it is important that powers come downwards and do not necessarily go upwards.
	In the context of new clause 5, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made some extremely good points about existing boundaries. The points that the Minister made in his interventions were not especially strong. Existing boundaries were established for entirely different purposes. Their use for constructing regional assemblies is a mistake. I shall not repeat previous arguments about the great variety of area sizes and populations.
	When preparing for the Bill, I visited several fire authorities. One of the control centres emphasised to me why a single control room for a region the size of the south-west would be inappropriate. In one control room, a tape was played of a small boy who dialled 999 to say that he could smell smoke. His mother was asleep upstairs on the bed with the baby.
	The controller asked the child where he lived. He could give the house name and the street name, but not the name of the town. The controller spent approximately 15 minutes talking matters through with the child. When the child named his school, the control room was able eventually to determine where the town was. It would be far harder for a single regional control room to work out such detail—not street names or the location of the chippie, as we discussed in Committee, but basic knowledge about where schools are—and thus identify the location of the incident. In the case that I mentioned, the child, the mother and the baby were all saved. I am not sure that that would have happened if there had been a regional control room.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I have had to be absent from the Chamber for a little while, for which I apologise.
	The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. When I visited the Devon fire rescue services centre, which he has visited often, I was impressed by its ability not only to locate a fire but to determine the equipment that was required to deal with it. For example, a specific number of vehicles and personnel would be sent to a burning timber yard. Of course, information is held on a computer, but local knowledge is also built up over many years. Anything that undermines that will disadvantage both the service and local people.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point well and I do not need to add to it. Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members accept that there does not necessarily have to be one control room to one authority, as currently happens. We accept that there might be some efficiency savings in combining some control rooms. However, the boundaries that the Government propose are fundamentally flawed. The Minister argued that there is currently a resilient regional network. That is a strong argument, but, if it is so strong, why will not he allow it to be tested? New clause 5 calls for a review—it states not that the boundaries should be changed but that they should be reviewed. If the review found that the Minister was correct, we would have to say, "Fair enough." However, he insists on forcing through inappropriate boundaries.
	Let us consider amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23. I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge for his broad support and I shall answer his questions. The Bill causes concern to the general public and especially those in the fire services because it states that
	"it appears to the Secretary of State that for the purposes of this Act, in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness, there should be a single fire and rescue authority for the combined area".
	People outside the Chamber may read into the phrase,
	"greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness"
	simply economy savings. Those conditions are not strong enough to force authorities to combine. An authority should be forced to combine only if it is negligent or failing. Amendment No. 21 would ensure that authorities that function well could continue to provide the service that the public require. Only if they are failing will the Minister be able to cast them aside and force them to combine.
	I take the point made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge about reorganisation. In my haste to redraft clause 2, I assumed that, under clause 22, a combined authority would follow a voluntary request, as long as there had been a reorganisation. Perhaps something should have been added, but I think that clause 22 would cover the situation.
	Clause 23 is complementary to new clause 9 rather than being an alternative. I think that new clause 9 has failings, but they are minor and not worth discussing in detail. The principles are broadly right.
	The proposal in amendment No. 23 for "one third" rather than "half" is intended simply to limit the Secretary of State's powers. Let us suppose that he has decided to combine the authorities, and to appoint up to 49 per cent. of members. How easy would it be for those so appointed to find one person elected from the authorities to take their side? I suspect that it would not be very difficult—and if they could do it, in effect the Government would control the committee. Reducing the Secretary of State's say to a third would allow the Government to have a say, but would prevent them from controlling the authority. Local authorities must be trusted; if we cannot trust them, there is no point in having them. Democracy relies on that trust.
	As for Government amendments 7 to 11, I too am thankful that there was something on which the Government were prepared to concede, and I am glad that it was a Liberal Democrat amendment, supported by the Conservatives. I am not sure whether they proposed the same amendment and it went in after ours, or whether they added their names to ours, but the fact remains that the need for change was accepted in principle.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made a very good point about the meaning of the word "urgent". I need to do some things urgently, but some things need to be done more urgently than others. The definition of the word "urgent" is like a piece of elastic. The Minister must tell us in what circumstances he would need an urgent management arrangement. Management reorganisation, by its very nature, takes time. I am not certain that urgency is required in this case. We will not be churlish, though. We are thankful for the concessions that have been made, although they may be small pickings.

Parmjit Dhanda: I am going to be parochial, and talk about control rooms or call centres rather than the more general subject of regionalisation. Although the Bill does not refer to control rooms in depth, they are a constituency issue.
	In some ways, Gloucestershire has been penalised for being somewhat ahead of the game. Not so many years ago, the thinking tended towards tri-service rather than regional arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Minister will know how difficult it was to get an arrangement up and running in Gloucestershire involving three services in one building, control rooms working together, and a level of integration that has not been achieved elsewhere in the country. I gather that as recently as last week there was an attempt to integrate the three services in Wiltshire, but so far it has not proved possible to integrate the fire service with the other two. In our case, members of the fire service said that the arrangement could prove difficult and dangerous, and there was even talk of loss of lives. I am pleased to say, however, that at local level all three services have been pragmatic enough not just to do this but to make it work, in a £6 million centre.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the threat of a loss of lives, but let us talk about loss of money for a moment. As far as he is aware, has anyone told the authorities in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire how they will cover their financial exposure to the tri-service control centres that they have set up, at the Deputy Prime Minister's exhortation, when the regional control rooms go ahead?

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman is getting very excited. I shall deal with his point shortly.
	It would be helpful to know whether the Minister can give Gloucestershire certain assurances, not least an assurance that the £6 million tri-centre building and its facilities will survive.
	In Gloucestershire, the extent of integration has gone beyond call centres. We now have a tri-service workshop. The three services work together to ensure that their equipment, machinery and vehicles are worked on not by the same set of engineers but under the same roof. Much can be learnt from that model. We do not want the region to lose it. As the Minister knows, the services have also set up a "blue skies group", which thinks through problems and does what it can to bring about even more integration. I hope that before any decisions are made about regional control centres the Minister will visit that centre, and take a good look at it.
	I am trying to be pragmatic, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) has been, especially in Committee. I note that, whether deliberately or otherwise, he proposes in amendment No. 22 the insertion of paragraph (c) in clause 2 in addition to paragraphs (a) and (b) rather than their replacement by it. In other words, he is creating circumstances in which a more regional or consolidated structure would exist. That is certainly pragmatic.
	If a regional structure is adopted for call centres and control rooms, I do not think there is a better example of best practice in the south-west than what we have managed to achieve in our tri-service centre. I should be interested to hear the Minister's view on our chances of ensuring that it remains in Gloucestershire and that the three services can continue to learn from the three levels of integration. I think that Gloucestershire is an ideal location, given the way in which they have worked together and made things happen.

David Drew: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) that there is no better place in which to continue the experiment than the Gloucester tri-service centre.
	Let me repeat what I said on Second Reading. In many respects this has been seen as the most controversial part of the Bill. Although we had our differences in Committee and although there have been disagreements about emphasis, there has been a good deal of consensus. It is about evolving change, and the same is true outside of this place. Both management and those working in the service have to a large extent agreed on the best way to make progress.
	However, this issue gives rise to some controversy, and I reiterate what I said on Second Reading. I have no fear about the way in which regional management boards would operate, in terms of the degree of strategic thinking and the need, in these days of terrorism and counter-terrorism, to consider how best we can operate and deploy our forces, but if we are talking about the making of decisions at a local level, the provision is not appropriate. Given the Gloucestershire experience—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, the same attempt is being made elsewhere with varying degrees of success—it is somewhat short-sighted to throw everything away, in the hope that we can improve delivery by assuming that the regional structure is the only structure. There are all manner of problems in the south-west, but they are not just a south-west phenomenon; they are likely to arise elsewhere in the country. The strategic direction is right, but operational delivery, including the most important elements of call centre work, should remain as local as possible. We need also to consider how to improve the relationship between the three emergency services.
	We must also consider the system of accountability. I make no apology for saying again that if we are to do the job properly, we must begin by considering the three emergency services with a blank sheet of paper. What is the best form of accountability? If the Opposition are arguing that accountability is best fulfilled through a modified police authority system, they can count me out because it does not work. We have too many authorities and in many respects we have the worst of all worlds. People are appointed as part of their county councillor functions, and magistrates are appointed through a system that anyone outside the political classes would find difficult to explain. Such authorities do not consist of happy people, and if Gloucestershire is anything to go by, the rate of inflation of police expenditure is far greater than that of any other authorities.

Philip Hammond: All systems have their flaws, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a police authority-style approach would work better if the Secretary of State simply appointed members, rather than receiving a long list from the local area and sending back a shortlist for local appointment?

David Drew: What I am saying is that the proposed system—be it the Government's version or the Opposition's—is deeply flawed and is antagonising local people. The previous Conservative Government thought that they were being clever in taking the police out of local authorities' remits, but that decision has rebounded, in that there seems now to be a total lack of accountability to the wider populous.
	We have an opportunity to consider how to deal with the three emergency services. If the Gloucestershire trust is anything to go by, we should consider the dilemma of the ambulance service. The Gloucestershire trust is the smallest trust. It is undermanned and underfinanced and regarded as very vulnerable. I urge the Government to consider carefully the arrangement between the three services in the context of our strategic direction. It will not help if we simply assume that fire authorities will deliver better services, while allowing the other two emergency services to drift in the wind. That is not acceptable. It will not constitute good delivery or build good relationships, and it will lead to greater confusion.

Nick Raynsford: This has been an interesting debate on an even more interesting group of new clauses and amendments, which deal with combined fire and rescue authorities.
	In order to understand part of the overall intention of new clause 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), it must be read in conjunction with amendment No. 3. It seeks to turn the clock back on the modernisation agenda, and to delay the action that both the Bain report and the White Paper argued were long overdue. I shall deal separately with two strands of the argument, the first of which is the impact of new clause 5(1)(a) in conjunction with amendment No. 3. The overall effect would be simple. First, it would remove clause 2(2)(b), which allows fire and rescue authorities to be combined so that their boundaries align with those of the English regions, and replace it with a requirement that within 12 months of any part of the Bill being enacted, an independent study be commissioned into the "optimum geographical areas" for organisation of the fire and rescue service.

Philip Hammond: The Minister is surely wrong about that. All that amendment No. 3 does is to remove the exemption for CFAs that constitute a region coterminous with regional development agency regions, in order to satisfy the criteria under clause 2(2)(a). If the Minister is proposing a CFA for an RDA region and it meets the criteria under clause 2(2)(a), he has no difficulty.

Nick Raynsford: My understanding is that amendment No. 3 would substitute the concept of a region as constituted for the purposes of regional development agencies legislation—in other words, a region as defined in terms of Government office regions—with a body that has emerged from the hon. Gentleman's review of the optimum geographical areas. If I am incorrect in that assumption I shall withdraw my remark, but that is my understanding of the affect of his amendment, and I shall proceed on that basis, assuming that he concurs.
	There are a number of things wrong with the proposal, the most important of which is that it appears to take little account of the explanation and assurances that I gave to the hon. Gentleman in Committee. During those discussions, I made it clear that the only circumstances in which I envisaged using the provisions of clause 2(2)(b) were ones involving public safety, in which the fire and rescue authorities had failed successfully to work together to ensure resilience. The obvious example of that is a failure to agree on the siting of, or the operational arrangements necessary for the introduction of, a regional control room.
	The context is important, because contrary to the claims made by the Opposition in Committee, we do not have an agenda of regionalisation through the back door. What we do have is an agenda of civil resilience, to ensure that the fire and rescue service is equipped to meet the challenges posed by the new dimensions of the terrorist threat and environmental disasters. To meet these challenges, the service must be closely integrated into the work of the regional resilience teams, which are based in the Government offices for the regions. These teams, in their turn, operate on a regional basis because it is a key principle within emergency planning that response structures should mirror emergency planning structures.
	I should tell the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) that it is preposterous—to use the word that the former has used a lot today—to suggest that there should be separate regional structures for the fire and rescue service and for the regional resilience arrangements. That could not work. It would be neither effective nor sensible, and it would not give us the protection that we need.
	We could no doubt debate at length whether the Government office boundaries established by the previous Administration, which underpin the whole infrastructure, were the right ones.

Philip Hammond: The Minister says that it would be preposterous not to organise the fire and rescue services on the same geographical basis as the resilience structure. According to that logic, will we have regional police management boards and regional health service management boards?

Nick Raynsford: No, the logic is that in terms of the geographical arrangement for the discharge of the responsibilities of the fire and rescue service, it is absurd to suggest another regional alignment that is entirely separate from the existing one. That would create confusion rather than coterminosity. I accept entirely that police authorities do not operate on that basis at the moment, but they are closely engaged in the regional resilience arrangements, and are putting arrangements in place to ensure that they can discharge their regional resilience responsibilities. As I have said, those are organised through the Government regional offices on the basis of the existing administrative regions—which, incidentally, were introduced by the Conservatives when they were in government.
	On Second Reading on 26 January, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) acknowledged that the existing Government office regions were
	"a compromise that fitted most of the Departments that then had regional organisations".—[Official Report, 26 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 92.]
	If we had time, an independent study such as that which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge suggests in new clause 5 might be an interesting activity in which to engage although, as he knows only too well, boundary debates tend to be long drawn out, fractious and unproductive. It is usually the Liberal Democrats who suggest such arrangements, which are a recipe for constant talk and debate, and no action. That is the key to why the hon. Gentleman has tabled the new clause. He wants long, protracted talk and delay, with no action, to avoid anything ever happening, because he is obsessed with the view that we are somehow committed to imposing regions by the back door, which is all part of some kind of European plot.

Philip Hammond: rose—

Hugo Swire: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I see the lemmings rising as one to rush over the cliff in their Europhobia.

Philip Hammond: I am stunned that the Minister has gone off at a tangent on a completely different subject. I was rising simply to ask him whether he would be good enough to acknowledge that the Government office regions were created for an entirely different purpose, and that no one ever asked whether they would be the most appropriate unit for the delivery of an operational fire and rescue service.

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the Government office regions were established by the previous Government on the basis—as I have quoted his right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal as recognising—that they were a compromise that fitted most of the Departments that then had regional organisations. Since then, they have developed considerably. They have taken on new functions, and new institutions have been created, such as regional development agencies, that follow the same regional boundaries. We are seeing a consolidation of arrangements within those regional structures and, most importantly, regional resilience is being organised on that basis. We have had the regional resilience forums for almost a year now. They are based in the Government offices, and it would be wholly counterproductive now to suggest alternative boundaries for one element—one emergency service—with an important contribution to make to that overall resilience.

Philip Hammond: rose—

Richard Younger-Ross: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and then to the hon. Member for Teignbridge.

Philip Hammond: The Minister says that we are seeing a consolidation of regional functions within those regional boundaries. A moment ago he denied that any regionalisation by stealth was taking place, but we see that consolidation as being precisely such regionalisation by stealth.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman must not confuse two matters. He will recognise that there has been administrative regionalisation, which his party, when in government, introduced on a substantial scale and which this Government have consolidated. A separate issue is the introduction of elected regional assemblies to allow a democratic—

Philip Hammond: What about RDAs?

Nick Raynsford: I have already said that we introduced regional development agencies, which consolidated the arrangements operating on a regional basis that the Conservative party set up. The Conservatives seem absolutely hellbent on disowning their own legacy, the things they thought appropriate when in power. That is an interesting insight, but I tell the hon. Gentleman once again that there is no agenda to impose elected regional assemblies by stealth. If people vote for them, there will be elected regional assemblies; if they do not, there will not be. What a marked contrast that is—

Hugo Swire: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman at the moment, because I have already said that I will give way to the hon. Member for Teignbridge. I shall give way to him later, but I just want to make this point. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge would do well to remember, his party did not give people any choice. It abolished regional tiers of government such as the Greater London council and some county councils, giving people absolutely no say. This Government are giving people choice. If they vote in favour of the regional assemblies, that will be their choice, and it is quite right that we should honour it.

Richard Younger-Ross: I shall not get drawn into the regional assembly argument at the moment. The Minister mentioned delay, and said that he opposed the Conservative new clause 5 and amendment No. 3 because they would cause a delay in forming combined fire authorities. Is there something that the Minister needs to tell us? If he is talking of a delay, that must mean that he is thinking of combining fire authorities now. Is that the case, and which fire authorities is he thinking of combining?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has got that wrong. I have already made it quite clear that the only circumstances in which we would use the clause 2(2)(b) powers—I said this about 10 minutes ago—would be in the interest of public safety where there had been a failure to put in place adequate arrangements to ensure regional resilience. That is an issue of public safety, and in those circumstances, we clearly could not delay while there was a long-drawn-out debate about the optimal regional boundaries. There would be an overriding priority to provide effective arrangements to ensure that the resilience that we have been talking about was in place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that.

Richard Younger-Ross: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I have undertaken to give way to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), but I shall give way once more to the hon. Member for Teignbridge.

Richard Younger-Ross: I am sorry, but the Minister has mentioned delay. New clause 5 calls for a review of the boundaries within 12 months. The Minister appears to be saying that he can envisage a circumstance in which the resilience is deemed not to be in place and, within 12 months, he will therefore be forcing a combination of authorities.

Nick Raynsford: indicated dissent.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister is shaking his head. If that is not the case, he cannot use the excuse that the proposal in new clause 5 would delay the process.

Nick Raynsford: No, I am afraid to say that the hon. Gentleman is getting more confused. We have said clearly that we will use the powers in clause 2(2)(b) only in the interests of public safety where there has been a failure to put in place arrangements that guarantee resilience. Those are the only circumstances in which we will use those powers, and if we have to use them, it is important that we should do so reasonably swiftly. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. The amendment and new clause, however, would essentially mean that no progress could be taken until the body that was carrying out the independent review had not only been set up but had reported. As the new clause allows only that that would be set up within 12 months of the Bill's receiving Royal Assent, there could be years of delay during which there were inadequate public safety arrangements in a particular region. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is seriously advocating that we should tolerate that position.

Philip Hammond: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I have undertaken to give way to the hon. Member for East Devon, but I shall then give way to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful, and I shall try to be quick. The Minister is entirely right in saying that people will be consulted democratically on whether they want regional assemblies, and I do not take issue with that. However, he does not say whether, if people vote against having elected regional assemblies, the Government will give them the option of disbanding the existing unelected regional assemblies. Will he assure us that, should people not vote for elected regional assemblies, there will be an option of doing away with the unelected regional assemblies?

Nick Raynsford: That question is very wide of what we are debating tonight, and I think that you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I moved into that territory. We have already made it quite clear that we will follow the views of the electorate on elected regional assemblies and that there will not be an assembly if the electorate vote against it. There will then be a continuation of the status quo.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has been very generous in giving way. Given that he has been prepared to state categorically that he will use the powers in clause 2(2)(b) only in the event of a failure of regional resilience, how has he been able to give an unequivocal undertaking that if an elected regional assembly is created in any region, he will create a combined fire authority for that region? He cannot know in advance that the hurdle set by clause 2(2)(a) will be cleared.

Nick Raynsford: No, but as I was intending to say to the hon. Gentleman later, the power to create a regional fire and rescue authority in the event of an elected regional assembly coming into existence will be provided in the relevant legislation—in the elected regional assemblies Bill. He will recall that in just the same way, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority—LFEPA—was established under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which created the Greater London authority. That is the appropriate way of establishing such bodies, but it would not happen under these powers.
	I hope that that puts the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. I realise that he is living in a realm of paranoia because of the word "region" and the effect that it has on his party, but I assure him that there is clear logic behind our proposals, and that they fit together consistently.

Philip Hammond: It is not paranoia; it is just a concern about the propriety of the Government giving unequivocal commitments that they will do something that, on the Minister's own admission, they do not even have the power to do. They are depending on some future legislation to give them that power.

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, we have published a White Paper and given a commitment to publish draft legislation, which we hope to do in July this year. There will also be a vote in a referendum at some subsequent date, probably in October. That, of course, is dependent on good progress being made with the other matters that have to be dealt with before the referendums can take place.
	We have strayed far from the provisions of the Bill, and I would like to come back to the matters in hand. I have given assurances about the use of clause 2(2)(b); they are on the record. If we need to act on grounds of public safety, it will by definition be something that has to be done quickly, so I cannot accept the constraint that subsection (1)(a) and amendment No. 3 would place on the ability of the Secretary of State to take urgent action to protect the public.
	Subsection (1)(b) has a rather different objective from subsection (1)(a). It seeks again to require the Secretary of State to commission an independent study, but this time into the success of regional management boards—including, if I read the intent of the hon. Gentleman correctly, any negative impact on the management capability of individual authorities of having some of their functions pooled at regional level. Here, I can reassure him that we are thinking along similar lines.
	Of course any responsible Government will want to assess and evaluate the impact of their policies, including those required under the fire and rescue national framework. But the independent evaluation that the hon. Gentleman suggests need not await a study commissioned
	"within 12 months of the coming into force of any part of this Act".
	That role has already been given to the independent Audit Commission, which has agreed to take on the task. Indeed, it has already published, on 25 February, a consultation paper setting out its draft comprehensive performance assessment framework for fire and rescue authorities. It proposes to implement the framework early next year, with outcomes publicly reported before autumn 2005.
	As the hon. Gentleman would expect, value for money will of course be to the fore, but the commission also specifically plans to assess the effectiveness of the work undertaken through regional management boards and to report on the management capability of individual fire and rescue authorities. It plans, in other words, to address the very issues about which he expressed concern, and it plans to address them sooner rather than, as the amendment envisages, later. Additionally, we are required by clause 24 to report periodically to Parliament on the delivery of the national framework, which of course includes regional collaboration. There will therefore be every opportunity for Parliament to keep a close watch on this matter. Because they are on the one hand damaging, and on the other unnecessary, I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause and the linked amendment to a vote.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister explain to the House what form that reporting to Parliament will take?

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to report on the national framework and to lay it before Parliament. Indeed, any significant amendments to it will be laid before Parliament as well. It will of course be open to Parliament to decide how, or if, it wishes to take these matters up and to scrutinise them. I have no doubt that the Select Committee may wish to consider some of the issues involved; it has shown a keen interest in them. Indeed, it will also be open to Opposition parties to seek debates on relevant matters if they choose to do so.
	Turning to new clause 9, also tabled by the hon. Gentleman, we find a solution in search of a problem. It sets out in elaborate detail a process for the appointment of members of fire and rescue authorities when the Secretary of State chooses to exercise the power in clause 3(3)(a). I am not going to dwell too long on the detail of that process, although I point out in passing that it could involve no fewer than six distinct stages, and that at its heart is a transparent attempt to create a stand-off between individual fire and rescue authorities and the Secretary of State over who should form their number.
	Instead, I shall focus on the substance. The issue of Secretary of State appointments was debated in Committee, although, as I recall, debate was curtailed when the hon. Gentleman moved rather swiftly to a vote. I acknowledged then that there were concerns, but I emphasised that the motivation was not to enhance central control but to improve the delivery of a vital public service. Clause 3(4) makes it clear that Secretary of State appointees—if they are made—will be a numerical minority, and will not be allowed to take part in votes on precepting. Only elected members will be able to make decisions about how resources are allocated.
	When appointment is considered necessary, however, those elected members will make decisions with the benefit of expertise that they themselves may not possess. I was frank and honest in Committee that, when combination is undertaken to tackle failing authorities it could well, in our view, be contradictory and counter-productive to restrict appointments to existing authority members. When capacity is needed to deliver improvements and modernisation, clause 3 could be used to bring into the new authorities the wider experience and expertise—be it managerial, financial or professional—that the existing authorities may lack. But to guarantee that the experts will be chosen for their ability, these will be open, advertised appointments made in accordance with the principles of public life that underpin the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Thus they will be made on merit, with openness and transparency and with full regard to equal opportunities. But in line with the seventh principle, they will also be proportional; they will not involve the endless to-ing and fro-ing advocated in new clause 9.
	Given all those safeguards, it should be clear to the House that we will use the power carefully and responsibly—if ever we come to use it. I must once again stress that we have these powers available only for circumstances in which there may be a failing authority and it is necessary to achieve a combination to tackle the problems relating to it, and when sufficient expertise is not otherwise available.

Philip Hammond: The Minister describes this as a reserved power, but does he envisage that power being built into the scheme for the CFA, so that, if there were to be a 49 per cent. Secretary of State appointment, it would be within the scheme rather than applying only in specified circumstances—for example, when the CFA has demonstrated a failure such as that of which the Minister speaks?

Nick Raynsford: As I have already made very clear, these are reserve powers that we would use only in certain rather limited circumstances. It is certainly not our intention to put a scheme in place that would provide for such arrangements to be made according to a prearranged plan. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, we have set maximum limits on the number of appointees. That does not mean that we would appoint that number of people, however. In certain cases, it might be appropriate to make only a very small number of appointments—if, for example, there were a serious weakness in terms of financial expertise or expertise in another area of responsibility regarded as very important. That would, however, be judged on a case-by-case basis. So far as the elected regional assemblies are concerned, arrangements for the appointment of the members of the regional fire authority will be contained in the legislation that brings the assemblies into existence.
	Amendment No. 14 repeats one that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge tabled in Committee and was rejected. Indeed it repeats something that he earlier tried to achieve through new clause 5 and its linked amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 14 seeks to remove the current clause 2(2)(b), which allows fire and rescue authorities to be combined so that their boundaries are aligned with those of the English regions. As I said earlier, in tabling it again, the hon. Gentleman appears to have taken little account of the explanation and assurances that I gave him during our exchanges in Committee. I made it clear that the only circumstances in which I envisaged using the provisions of clause 2(2)(b) were ones of public safety.

Philip Hammond: I apologise to the Minister. When I intervened on him earlier to make a point about amendment No. 3, I was of course referring to amendment No. 14. I had got myself confused between the two. Given what he has just said, can he envisage any circumstances in which he could not do what he has just described under the powers granted to him in clause 2(2)(a)? Surely, in circumstances in which public safety required a CFA to be created urgently, it would be in the interests of greater efficiency and effectiveness, if not economy, to use those powers. Is it not the truth that clause 2(2)(b) is simply redundant?

Nick Raynsford: No, it is not. It is available only in limited circumstances, but it is very important because one can envisage circumstances in which existing fire and rescue authorities were operating with a reasonable degree of economy, efficiency and effectiveness but had failed to come together on the resilience issues in a way that ensured an effective arrangement at regional level to provide the resilience that we are seeking. In those circumstances, it would be necessary for us to act in the interests of public safety.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned public safety issues, and I have just highlighted some of those. An example that I have often cited, which any Secretary of State would need to take very seriously indeed, would be a failure to agree on the siting of or operational arrangements for regional control rooms. I emphasise again that this is not a cavalier provision and that my assurances about its use are on the parliamentary record. On the basis of those assurances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his proposal.
	Amendment No. 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Teignbridge, is designed to limit the use of clause 2(2)(a)—but, strikingly, not the use of clause 2(2)(b), about which he appears to have less concern—to circumstances in which one or more of the authorities concerned are failing to discharge their duties. Clause 2 as currently drafted provides the Secretary of State with the power to combine existing fire and rescue authorities into a larger single authority in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In doing so, it accepts that the work of the fire and rescue service—work to which I have paid tribute on many occasions—must be performed effectively, but acknowledges that it must also be performed as economically and efficiently as possible. It is the council tax payer who funds a significant proportion of the cost of the service; it is the general taxpayer, through central Government, who funds the rest.
	It is perfectly possible—indeed, independent studies confirm it—that we might have an excellent, responsive service at a local level costing significantly more than an equally excellent and responsive service elsewhere. If combination can maintain that quality at a lower cost to the taxpayer, freeing up moneys to be reinvested in fire prevention work and the promotion of community fire safety, I doubt that many in the House would wish to prevent it, but amendment No. 21 would. It says that there must first be a failing authority—one not performing its legal duties—before a larger unit can be created.
	The case for combination, may be based not on failure, but on the proven ability of larger authorities to rise to the challenge of delivering the best service for the lowest cost. The Secretary of State still needs to make that efficiency case, not least at the inquiry that we will now be holding in response to the hon. Gentleman's persuasive arguments in Committee to the effect that an inquiry should be mandatory. On his restrictive and counter-productive amendment, however, we are not persuaded, and I ask him to withdraw it.
	Amendment No. 22, also proposed by the hon. Member for Teignbridge, appears to be the product of a misunderstanding. The Bill as currently drafted allows the Secretary of State under clause 2(2)(a) to make a combination order on the grounds of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Such an order may, among other things, give effect to a draft scheme submitted by the existing authorities themselves under clause 2(3)(a). Amendment No. 22 would duplicate the meaning of those provisions read in tandem, and add nothing further. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
	Amendment No. 23 was tabled by the hon. Member for Teignbridge in Committee, but circumstances prevented us from debating it. Had we done so, I hope that I would have persuaded him that it amounts simply to an arbitrary and artificial restriction on the Secretary of State's ability to appoint the necessary expertise in situations where combination has been undertaken to tackle failing authorities.
	Clause 3(4) already makes it clear that Secretary of State appointees to combined fire and rescue authorities will be a numerical minority, and clause 3(5) that they will not be allowed to take part in votes on precepting. As I have already said, Secretary of State nominees will be appointed only after open advertisement and in accordance with the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. They will also be appointed solely on merit.
	With all those safeguards, amendment No. 23 really does tilt at windmills. Ensuring that Secretary of State appointees are in a minority maintains the democratic principle that local representatives should have the final say in matters of disagreement. Restricting them to one third presupposes that our objective is to have as many as possible when, in fact, our intention is to have only as many as necessary. We no more wish to appoint 49 per cent. than 10 per cent. Rather we wish to ensure that combined authorities have the skills and expertise that they need to deliver a modernised and cost-effective service. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
	I now move on to Government amendments Nos. 7 to 11. Government amendments Nos. 7 and 8 fulfil a promise made in Committee. I said then that I would further consider an amendment from the hon. Member for Teignbridge that would have made an inquiry mandatory in every case where the Secretary of Sate proposes to create a combined fire and rescue authority or to vary or revoke a scheme creating one.
	I explained that we were sympathetic to the underlying purpose of the amendment, and confirmed that it was our intention in normal circumstances to hold an inquiry, as well as carrying out the specific consultation required under clause 2(5). I also explained, however, that there might be circumstances in which the needs of public safety meant that we could not await the outcome of a potentially lengthy inquiry before taking action.
	The example that I gave—and have repeated today—was fire and rescue authorities failing successfully to work together to meet the demands of civil resilience by establishing a regional control room. I therefore undertook to find a form of words that embodied the spirit of the amendment while ensuring that the needs of public safety remained paramount. That is what we have tabled today. As well as an exemption for public safety, it exempts from a mandatory inquiry situations in which those affected by the Secretary of State's proposals are happy with them and those where the combination, variation or revocation is simply a consequence of a wider local or regional government boundary change. In all other cases, an inquiry will now be the norm. I hope that hon. Members will welcome the steps that we have taken to accommodate the wishes of the Standing Committee.

Philip Hammond: Something registered an alarm bell there. The Minister spoke of what would happen as a result of a local or regional government boundary changes. My interpretation was that the Government amendment referred to local government boundary changes undertaken under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 rather than to the regional boundary changes themselves. I had interpreted the provision as meaning that things could proceed where there was a change in local government boundaries—nothing to do with regions.

Nick Raynsford: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I will certainly check it. The wording is quite technical, so I will write to him about the point.
	Government amendments Nos. 9 to 11 also fulfil a promise that I made in Committee to reflect further on the circumstances in which holding an inquiry might not be possible or appropriate. The amendments apply to existing combination schemes—that is, schemes made under the Fire Services Act 1947. I have already outlined our approach towards new schemes and to their future variation or revocation.
	As with Government amendments Nos. 7 and 8, an inquiry will now be the norm. The only exceptions—I trust that they are not now contentious—are an exemption for public safety, an exemption in situations where those affected by the Secretary of State's proposals are happy with them, and an exemption where the variation or revocation is simply a consequence of a wider local or regional government boundary change. I trust that hon. Members will welcome our steps to accommodate the wishes of the Standing Committee, and I commend the amendments to the House.
	Before I conclude, I should like to deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Teignbridge and by my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew).
	The hon. Member for Teignbridge asked about local knowledge and the operation of a control room. He posed an interesting example of controllers talking to a young child and trying to identify the location of a call. I have to tell him that the arrangements being put in place to procure a new communications or call system for operation by the fire service—to be operated through regional control centres—will use the latest modern technology, which has the capacity to pinpoint very precisely the location from where a call has been made. That obviates the need for a lengthy process of having to talk through the problem of location.
	It is fundamental to have the best modern technology, which makes it possible to identify the location of the call and then to direct and guide the fire and rescue service to that particular location. I have seen some of the best new systems being introduced, so I am well aware of the scope for improving the effectiveness of the service through the introduction of new technology.
	On the notion that new clause 5 is not particularly objectionable because it requires only a review, I have to say that it does not require only a review. When linked with amendment No. 3, it would block any move to a region other than those that satisfy the conclusions of the review proposed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It is not simply a benign and ideal Liberal Democrat debating chamber opportunity for endless discussion about optimal regional boundaries—and if it were, it would, as we all know, rarely, if ever, lead to conclusions.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Stroud and for Gloucester made important points about regional control rooms and the possible implications for Gloucester. I recognise the achievement in creating the tri-service centre in Gloucester, which my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio visited recently—he told me how impressed he was by what he saw. I have been invited to visit it, and I have indicated that I will be happy to when a convenient moment becomes available in my busy diary because I want to see more of the good work that is being done there.
	I am also well aware of the anxieties in Gloucester about the implications of a move towards regional control rooms. I say to my hon. Friends that there is no reason why a move to regional control rooms would threaten the continued operation of the Gloucester centre. In the first place, Gloucester will be open to bid as a location for the regional control room. No decisions have been taken on an appropriate location, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will make a persuasive case on the merits of Gloucester.

Robert Key: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I am answering the points made by my hon. Friends.
	If it were decided to locate the regional control room elsewhere—no doubt conflicting proposals will be advanced by other hon. Members, some of whom have not been in the Chamber for very long, and certainly not as long as my hon. Friends who have sat through the whole debate—only 10 per cent. of the existing tri-service centre's work load is fire-related, and 90 per cent. of it is not, and it is therefore questionable whether such a decision would threaten the continued operation of the Gloucester centre. However, we want to discuss the issue in detail with all concerned because I understand the anxieties.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give an undertaking this evening on behalf of the Government that, if there is any cost involved in moving the fire element of the tri-service centre away from Gloucester, the council tax payers of Gloucestershire will not have to bear it?

Nick Raynsford: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman, whom we missed in Committee because he was frequently absent. I am glad to see him this evening on this brief appearance after several hours of debate. I assure him that cost-effectiveness is one of the main considerations, and we will certainly examine the financial implications, including the potential savings that will come from the establishment of a regional control centre, for all authorities involved before final decisions are taken. I assure him that the issues will be examined impartially.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked about accountability. One existing fire and rescue authority in England, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, is already constituted on regional lines, and it was created under the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It is thoroughly accountable, and, interestingly, it includes not only directly elected members of the Greater London authority but representatives from London boroughs. It is an interesting example of achieving a proper framework of accountability within the regional structure.
	With those comments, I hope that the House will agree that the Government amendments should be endorsed, and I ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond: I could say a great deal, but I must speak against the backdrop of the Minister's filibuster. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the failure of the annunciator system allowed him to go on for rather longer than he wanted to.
	The Minister has not attempted to make a case for the existing Government offices for the regions being the optimum basis for the organisation of our fire and rescue services. All we have heard from him is the ludicrous charge that because we introduced Government offices for the regions in the first place, it is somehow our fault. In view of the time, I do not intend to use any more of it up, but simply urge my hon. Friends to support new clause 5 in the Lobby.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 263.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7
	 — 
	Directions Relating to Particular Classes of Fires and Emergencies

'(1) The Secretary of State may direct a Fire and Rescue Authority to take, or not to take, action specified in the direction in relation to—
	(a) a fire of a type or occurring in circumstances specified in the direction, or
	(b) an emergency of another kind of a type or occurring in circumstances specified in the direction.
	(2) A direction under this section may require a fire and rescue authority to act outside the authority's area.
	(3) A direction under this section may be varied or revoked by a further such direction.
	(4) A direction under this section shall be made by order.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 13—Fire safety—
	'(1) The Secretary of State may give direction to a fire and rescue authority to inspect the fire safety of one or all of—
	(a) schools;
	(b) residential and nursing homes;
	(c) homes in multiple occupation;
	in the authorities' area.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall give such direction to a fire and rescue authority as conferred by subsection (1) of this Clause if requested to do so by a local authority or fire and rescue authority for the area of that authority.
	(3) Where inspections are made under subsections (1) or (2) the Fire and Rescue Authority shall make a report detailing, in particular how fire safety may be improved by—
	(a) the installation of fire sprinkler or misting systems;
	(b) alteration to means of escape;
	(c) passive fire protection measures;
	(d) fire and smoke alarm system.
	(4) Where reports are received by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) of this Clause the Secretary of State shall consult with—
	(a) the existing authorities in question;
	(b) any persons he considers appropriate as to whether further legislation is required to require the retro fitting of such measures and to what extent it is practical to do so.
	(5) The Secretary of State shall after such consultation as carried out under subsection (4) of this Clause publish the results of such consultation.'.
	Amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 18, leave out Clause 10.

Philip Hammond: Amendment No. 5 would pave the way for new clause 7 by removing clause 10 from the Bill. Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene directly in a fire or incident. I shall spare the Deputy Prime Minister's blushes, given that he is in the Chamber, and not repeat the lurid image that was painted in Committee of him sitting in the basement of No. 26 Whitehall ordering fire engines around Britain.
	Conservative Members believe that that arrangement is not appropriate. Systems need to be established to allow professionals to handle operational situations through existing arrangements such as reinforcement, which the Bill provides for. The Under-Secretary may envisage a situation following an unconventional terrorist attack, but powers in the Civil Contingencies Bill provide for the direction of resources in such an emergency. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members are not listening to, or taking part in, the debate, would they either leave the Chamber or listen quietly? I am having difficulty hearing the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House.

Philip Hammond: It would be more appropriate to set down procedures for co-operation and the control of major incidents than to use the ad hoc power in clause 10. New clause 7 sets out the same powers of direction, but does that in advance, and in relation to a type of fire or incident, or a fire or incident that occurs in specified circumstances. It provides that such direction would be made by order, which would enable parliamentary scrutiny of the arrangements that were put in place.
	We do not understand the need for the Secretary of State's role of hot direction under clause 10. Fire and rescue authorities should be established and charged with their functions. The Bill contains provisions to put in place co-operation and reinforcement procedures, and new clause 7 would give the Secretary of State all the powers that he needs, in advance, to set out precise procedures, control arrangements and allocation of responsibilities in specified circumstances. Clause 10 confers an unreasonable and disproportionate power that will undermine the professionalism of the service and question the reinforcement and contingency arrangements that will routinely be put in place under the Bill. There is much more that I could say, but in view of the time, I shall now conclude.

Phil Hope: Amendment No. 5 would remove the Secretary of State's power to direct a fire or rescue authority in the event of a specific fire or other emergency, and new clause 7 would replace that power to direct with an order-making power similar to that in clause 9. The amendment reflects a misunderstanding of what clause 10 is intended to cover. To clarify and repeat what was said in Committee, it will be invoked only when an emergency is imminent, or upon us, and when urgent action is thus necessary.
	For example, the Secretary of State will be able to direct a fire and rescue authority to respond when an unforeseen emergency occurs for which the fire and rescue service has been unable to plan and there is no time to make the necessary order under clause 9. Such a direction will remove any concern an authority might have had about a possible conflict between its local responsibilities and the need to respond to an incident not covered by its core duties.
	Clause 10 will also allow a measure of central co-ordination when a fire or other emergency occurs on such a massive scale that a local or even regional response is insufficient. That might include a catastrophic fire, widespread and serious flooding or an emergency such as a terrorist event on the scale of 11 September 2001. During such an extreme or unusual event, it is vital for the Secretary of State to offer direction should circumstances dictate it so that events can be reacted to swiftly and urgently on the ground. In such circumstances, there would be no time for the Secretary of State to make an order—

It being Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [26 January].
	The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 265.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Power to Create Combined Fire and Rescue Authorities

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 2, line 40, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
	No. 8, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
	'(8A) The Secretary of State is not required to cause an inquiry to be held under subsection (8) (but may do so) if—
	(a) in a case within subsection (8)(a), the existing authorities in question agree to the making of the scheme,
	(b) in a case within subsection (8)(b), the combined fire and rescue authority and any other authority which would, apart from the scheme, be a fire and rescue authority under section 1 and which would be affected by the variation or revocation, agree to the variation or revocation,
	(c) in either case, it appears to the Secretary of State that the scheme, variation or revocation is to be made solely for the purpose of giving effect to an order under Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c.70), Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1992 (c.19) or section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 (c.10), or
	(d) in either case, the Secretary of State considers that, in the interests of public safety, the scheme should be made, varied or revoked without delay.'.—[Phil Hope.]

Clause 4
	 — 
	Combined Authorities Under The Fire Services Act 1947

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 4, line 22, after '(4)', insert 'varying or'.
	No. 10, in page 4, line 23, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
	No. 11, in page 4, line 23, at end insert—
	'(7) The Secretary of State is not required to cause an inquiry to be held under subsection (6) (but may do so) if—
	(a) the combined authority and any other authority which would, apart from the scheme, be a fire and rescue authority under section 1 and which would be affected by the variation or revocation, agree to the variation or revocation,
	(b) it appears to the Secretary of State that the scheme is to be varied or revoked solely for the purpose of giving effect to an order made under Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c.70), Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1992 (c.19) or section 17 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 (c.10), or
	(c) the Secretary of State considers that, in the interests of public safety, the scheme should be varied or revoked without delay.'.—[Phil Hope.]

Clause 19
	 — 
	Charging

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 9, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	'(2) An order under subsection (1) may authorise charging for extinguishing fires, or protecting life and property in the event of fires, only in respect of fires which are at sea or under the sea.
	(2A) An order under subsection (1) may not authorise charging for emergency medical assistance.'.
	No. 13, in page 9, line 29, at end insert—
	'(8) The references in subsection (2) to [odq]sea[cdq] are not restricted to the territorial sea of the United Kingdom.'.—[Phil Hope.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Let me remind the House of the key measures contained in the Fire and Rescue Services Bill that will help to make the service a better service for the public, and better for those who work within it. This is, as all hon. Members will be aware, the first major legislation on fire and rescue matters for 57 years. It comes after a long period in which the fire and rescue service performed its traditional functions with creditable efficiency, commanding the confidence of the public and ensuring a swift response to fires where they broke out. However, it was also a period in which there was a growing awareness of the need for the service to undertake a more extensive role. First, it began to be increasingly involved in other areas of emergency work, notably road traffic accidents. Secondly, it became increasingly conscious of the importance of prevention. We now know that however good a fire brigade is at responding to the threat of fires when they occur and getting to the scene of fires quickly—the brigades are extremely good and perform with commendable courage and commitment in discharging those responsibilities—we know also that in too many instances people die unnecessarily because they are overwhelmed before a fire brigade can reach them, and in many cases before the fire brigade is even alerted. That emphasises the importance of a greater focus on fire prevention and measures to avoid unnecessary fires occurring in the first place.
	It is right that new legislation should put a strong focus on helping to save more lives and to create safer communities. It should contain a new duty on all fire and rescue authorities to promote fire safety. It should give greater encouragement to fire and rescue authorities to work constructively within their communities to identify risks and to ensure that effective preventive measures are in place.
	It is vital also that the fire and rescue service should recognise the much wider responsibilities to which fire brigades respond as a matter of course in dealing with road traffic accidents and major emergencies alongside traditional firefighting. It is important also that we recognise the growing importance of provision to underpin national resilience, through powers to ensure a co-ordinated and strategic response by fire and rescue authorities to specific emergencies, including flooding on a massive scale, a major terrorist incident or catastrophic fires.

John Redwood: Does the Minister think that the world would be a better place if more authorities charged for rescuing cats and dogs, or fewer?

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting issue that I shall address briefly later in my speech. The world will be a better place as a result of the Bill, which will put far greater emphasis on the importance of fire safety and fire prevention work. That is the ultimate objective if we are to save lives and avoid unnecessary fires. Issues about whether charges should be made for certain relatively small aspects of the work of fire and safety services are second-order questions. I shall return to them, but the more important objectives of saving lives, of preventing unnecessary fire and of reducing the number of people whose lives are either ended or blighted by unnecessary fires or other disasters are the priorities that the Government consider to be fundamental.
	The Bill will ensure that the fire and rescue service has a clear sense of direction and the means to deliver it. The measure will give statutory force to the fire and rescue national framework, which provides, as has been demonstrated in this evening's debates, the national leadership that was called for so clearly by the independent review of the fire service, which was chaired by Sir George Bain. The review highlighted the failures over many years, and of successive Governments, to address the needs for change in the service and the need to give leadership. We have recognised that responsibility to effect change and to introduce new arrangements that give a proper sense of direction and a momentum for change to the fire and rescue service.
	Through our new intervention powers, we shall be able to ensure that fire and rescue authorities act in accordance with the requirement of the national framework and that there are safeguards in place against a failure to provide the necessary arrangements to underpin national resilience and public safety.

Hugo Swire: Before the Minister rubbishes the Fire Brigades Union, which I am sure that he will not, does he recognise that it says that there are some positive steps contained within the Bill? However, it goes on to say that, basically, the underlying proposals
	"downgrade the rescue role of the fire service and produce cuts across the service under the guise of local Integrated Risk Management plans."
	The Minister has obviously failed to convince that audience. How can he convince other people if he cannot convince the professionals within the fire service that the Bill is not about regionalisation and cost saving?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is speaking as if the events of the past two years never took place. He may have been oblivious to what happened, but most hon. Members know perfectly well that there was a difficult and controversial dispute and that inevitably the FBU took up positions that were not wholly supportive of the Government's position. We nevertheless are driving forward a reform agenda that aims both to improve the quality of the fire services and their effectiveness in preventing fires and enhance their well-earned reputation for bravery and effectiveness in dealing with fires and putting them out. The Government have never done anything other than salute the courage and commitment of fire service workers who do a difficult and dangerous job very well. However, it is important to look at ways in which we can make it easier to prevent fires and, by doing so, reduce the risk that firefighters face when they respond to fires.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's regional fantasies, an extraordinary characteristic of all our debates has been the Conservatives' Pavlovian response as soon as the word "region" is mentioned. They behave as if they are puppets manipulated by someone who wants to continue dancing to the UK Independence party tune, but we are sensible, pragmatic and forward-looking in our approach, and are not affected by the dogma that the Opposition unfortunately—

Philip Hammond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Raynsford: I shall do so in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman should listen to what I have to say, because he is, I am afraid, equally guilty of Pavlovian reactions to any references to Europe or regions and is happy to dance to the UKIP tune.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has added "Pavlovian" to "preposterous" and "paranoid" as his favourite adjectives to describe me. He is obviously stung by his inability to deal with the charge that inappropriate regionalisation is being imposed on the service. He has moved away from defending himself against that attack, and in the past hour or so he started to refer to Europe and the UKIP. Would he tell me when I have ever referred to Europe or, indeed, the UKIP in the context of the Bill?

Nick Raynsford: I have a long memory, and I recall the many occasions during the passage of the Local Government Act 2003 and during our discussions on the Bill when references to regions produced the utterly predictable response that this was all a European plot to impose inappropriate structures on Britain. That response was entirely unjustified and indicative of a party obsessed with the long forgotten ideological causes that motivated it in the era when Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister. One day, its members will wake up, realise that the world has moved on, and become a better Opposition party. Sadly, however, it will be a long time before they have the responsibility of government.
	We are committed to ensuring more effective collaboration between fire and rescue authorities and more cost-effective services, which involves working together at a regional level on a number of responsibilities that are best discharged at that level. Our White Paper set out clearly the Government's view that certain responsibilities need to be discharged at a national level. We made clear our commitment to give leadership and show the way forward for the fire and rescue services in the White Paper, the national framework and the Bill, but we accept that a number of services are delivered best and most cost-effectively at regional level. Regional resilience requires co-ordination with the other emergency services at a regional level. The demands of coping with major threats such as that of terrorism require organisation on a scale that can only be discharged effectively at regional level. The introduction of regional control rooms will bring substantial benefits, including considerable gains in cost-effectiveness. The average cost of answering an emergency call in London is £18, but in the Isle of Wight the equivalent cost is £168. Such wide discrepancies are simply not sustainable, and we have to move forward in a way that guarantees an effective service that delivers the most cost-effective outcomes, but does so on the basis of the absolute underlying principle that public safety and a quick response to any emergency are fundamental.

Philip Hammond: Does the Minister have any evidence that the closing down of 40 of the fire control rooms in England to leave only nine covering the whole country will improve public safety? If he has such evidence, why did not the Select Committee uncover it and include it in its report?

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, although he chose not to refer to it, the Mott MacDonald study looked very carefully at that issue. It concluded that the previous recommendations of some three years earlier had not been implemented and acted upon, and that there was an overriding case for moving to regional control rooms. It even suggested that there was a possibility of moving to three supra-regional control rooms for the whole of England. In the end, it decided that a basis of nine regional control rooms in the English regions was probably the best outcome.
	The arguments are clear and they have been spelled out; they are to do with ensuring the most cost-effective systems, but also the most effective and up-to-date systems. That includes new technology that enables the pin-pointing of calls in order to direct fire and rescue teams in the most effective way to the location of a fire or emergency and arrangements that allow integration with the other emergency services through the new Firelink communications system. All those things are about improving effectiveness, giving a better service to the public and responding more effectively to a wide range of possible eventualities.

Adrian Flook: Has the Minister any idea which of the regions will move more quickly? Does he have any idea whether the south-west will be moving towards regional control centres more quickly than other regions?

Nick Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will know—we said it often in the Committee, of which he was a member—that the process has involved all regions setting up regional management boards, which are in place, and they will be considering over the next few months the detailed arrangements for implementing what is required to be implemented at a regional level. I have always made it clear that some issues need to be handled nationally, some need to be handled regionally, including regional control rooms and other things, and some need to be handled locally. Getting that arrangement right is fundamental to delivering the best possible service. Of course, response and community engagement are best handled at a local level, and that will continue to be the case in all circumstances and all parts of the country.
	We also recognise that fire and rescue authorities must work with each other and other bodies to deliver their new functions. In the course of this evening's debate, we have highlighted areas where, on the fire prevention and community engagement agenda, it is clearly advantageous for fire and rescue authorities to work with other bodies, including local authorities, individuals and community groups, to ensure the most effective outcomes. The message about joint working and working across traditional barriers is also very important, and such activity will be facilitated by the Bill.
	We are also ensuring that fire and rescue authorities have appropriate powers and obligations to enter into mutual assistance schemes to support the discharge of all their core operational functions. We will continue to maintain the existing ability for fire and rescue authorities to charge for particular services while continuing to exclude the possibility of charging for fighting fires and not extending charging powers other than in circumstances in which it is clear that that is appropriate and can be done in a way that in no way damages public safety and security. I have always said—and I repeat it tonight—that public safety is the overriding priority. Ultimately, that determines our whole approach to the future of the fire and rescue service.
	The Bill will help to make the fire and rescue service a better place for all who work in it by repealing outdated legislation to allow a modern approach to recruitment, training and development; by bringing forward new powers to create new multiple pension schemes while protecting existing pension provision; and by taking reserve powers to ensure effective negotiating machinery for the fire and rescue service that recognises its changing role and includes representation of all its employees.

Roger Williams: I asked the Minister about devolution on Second Reading. I am still not clear whether the Government intend to devolve the setting up of pay negotiating bodies and pension provision to the Welsh Assembly. It is not clear in the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I am not in the least surprised that he is confused. The provisions are governed by clause 60, which says:
	"In its application to Wales, the following provisions of this Act have effect as if for each reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales".
	On a cursory reading of the Bill, especially if they started at the front rather than the back, people might be tempted to believe that the Secretary of State has powers to determine matters in Wales. The policy objective is the devolution of all policy functions and finance matters to Wales. The one matter that is reserved is pensions, for reasons that he will fully understand.
	I understand that the Welsh Assembly Government intend to continue to operate the current arrangements for negotiation and bargaining on pay and conditions at a UK level, and I know that the Scottish Executive are equally committed to maintaining that arrangement, which will continue as long as all the parties agree that it should, and it will be a voluntary arrangement reached by the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

Roger Williams: I thank the Minister for that clarification. Will there be any provision to ensure that Welsh fire and rescue services and employers are represented on the pay negotiating bodies?

Nick Raynsford: That will be a matter for the national joint council, which will consider changes to the rather cumbersome existing structures.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) is looking for bits of paper to prove that the Secretary of State will have inevitable intervention powers here. I remind him that we have made it clear that we have such powers but will use them only if the NJC fails to come up with satisfactory amendments to the existing arrangements to allow the whole system to operate effectively.
	In June 2003, we published our fire and rescue White Paper, responding to the challenge set out by the independent review of the fire service led by Sir George Bain. It outlined our vision for a fire and rescue service better able to meet the challenges of the 21st century—a service that saves more lives by protecting the public and creating safer communities. The Bill is crucial to delivering that vision, and I commend it to the House.

Philip Hammond: The 45 minutes that have been allocated for Third Reading constitute a totally inadequate time, so I shall be brief.
	We have had our differences in these debates, but our proceedings have been generally constructive. I say to the Minister that regionalisation is an issue but Europe, in the context of fire and rescue services, thankfully, is not. I want to reiterate our strong support for the modernisation agenda as originally presented, with its emphasis on local management; its focus on prevention and education and the matching of resources to risk to life through genuine risk-based integrated risk management plans; and, critically, its reform of working practices, freeing up resources for that prevention agenda and for the new focus that we need on the response to terrorism.
	We were nervous when Ministers declared the result of the IRMPs in advance by saying that modernisation would pay for the firefighters' pay settlement. We were alarmed, as the Minister knows, when the targets were relaxed last summer, as they were a key justification for the modernisation programme. We had fears about the balance between local, national and regional dimensions, especially when we read the Bill and the framework documents, but we have remained supportive throughout of the Bill's core. At its core, the programme is sound.
	We acknowledge that, for exceptional circumstances, there is a need for a supra-brigade response, especially to deal with the new threat of terrorism. We have always recognised the benefits of co-operation between authorities, not only in response to unconventional threats but across the board to create appropriate units for providing the best possible service to the public. However, a balance needs to be struck between the national, regional and local tiers. We need to focus on the needs of the service, not unrelated considerations. We must also ensure that the service is driven from the bottom up, with democratically accountable local fire and rescue services working together so that the service is provided at the appropriate level.

John Redwood: Is my hon. Friend worried, as I am, that regional management might mean another tier of management, with higher salaries, more inefficiency and enormous reorganisation rather than the drive for job losses and greater cost control that the Minister imagines?

Philip Hammond: All the evidence shows that the introduction of a regional tier increases, not decreases, bureaucracy. The Select Committee report pointed out that no evidence had been presented to show that there would be a reduction in bureaucracy. I stress to my right hon. Friend that a bigger concern is that sucking away certain powers to the regional management boards will leave some smaller fire and rescue services with a management structure that withers on the vine. I wonder whether the Government's medium-term to long-term objective is to emaciate fire and rescue authorities to the point when regional combined authorities become inevitable.
	We share the Government's view that the Bill recognises the wider role of fire and rescue services by including statutory functions for road traffic accidents and other forms of emergency. We appreciate and approve the focus on prevention and education. Many other aspects of the measure are long overdue acknowledgements of the work of the fire and rescue services.
	The Bill suffers from two significant flaws. First, the balance between national and local powers is wrong, with the Secretary of State's huge reserve powers having the potential to undermine the role of local, democratically accountable fire and rescue authorities. The Minister is at pains to emphasise that they are reserve powers, but only time will tell.
	Secondly, we are worried about the imposition of an arbitrary and irrelevant regional structure on the fire and rescue service. That structure was designed for a different purpose and no evidence has been adduced for the proposition that it is the most appropriate way in which to run a fire and rescue service. The Government's agenda is nowhere more evident than in their proposal to reduce the number of control rooms throughout England from 49 to nine. No evidence has been produced to show that that is in the interests of public safety. We believe that it will prove sub-optimal and that the motivation for the regional agenda is extraneous to the fire and rescue service.
	Our preference is for a fire and rescue service that is based on the maxim, "Quality services locally delivered." We support a service that would confer clear functions and duties, including best value, on local fire authorities, which are accountable to their communities. That would lead them to work together, for example, by merging control rooms and sharing equipment, to discharge those functions, and they would always answer to their communities, not the Secretary of State.
	We accept that the Secretary of State must play a role in national preparedness to deal with a terrorist or other major incident, but that must not snuff out the stand-alone capability of our local emergency services, which will surely happen with regionalisation.
	At the heart of the Bill is a positive agenda, which we support. It has been spoilt by the inability to resist the Whitehall obsession with total control of every last detail, and by the subordination of its aims to the regional agenda. We will not vote against it tonight, but urge our noble Friends to try again—as we have tried—to get the Government to see the case for restoring local fire authorities' lead role in the new structure. We want a bottom-up, collaborative approach based on geographical units that are relevant to the fire and rescue service, not some other agenda, so that we end up with a service that is truly rooted in our local communities and is the stronger for it.

John McDonnell: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Bill. I thank him both for his inclusiveness in involving us in discussions, and for the open and transparent way in which he explained the details of the Bill. Much in the Bill reflects the views of firefighters, fire managers and fire authorities. It reflects a modern fire service, and the range of services that are now provided. I am grateful to the Minister for addressing continuing concerns, particularly the clear establishment of minimum standards to be set through guidance across the country but also the advocacy of maximum quality of service.
	Clause 32, however, still causes concern. It relates to guidance in the context of industrial relations. Let me sound a note of caution. The Bill arrived in the climate that followed one of the bitterest disputes in 25 years. We introduced legislation giving Government powers to impose a settlement, and we introduced a sunset clause that will, we hope, reach fruition shortly as a result of the constructive discussions that have taken place. What I do not want is for clause 32 to be interpreted by this or any future Government as a way of interfering in industrial relations again, and imposing settlements on firefighters. Tonight they will be on shift—men and women who risk their lives daily to protect us and our communities. We do not want to drag them into the bitterness of another dispute like last year's.

Richard Younger-Ross: It has been a pleasure and an honour to serve on the Committee, and to lead for my party today. My father was a firefighter in the London docks during the war, and as a child I was brought up with the fire service.
	As has been said, there is much in the Bill to support. As we said on Second Reading, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has made clear, we wholeheartedly believe in the modernisation process. Most of our debates have been very constructive. The Minister, for instance, was able to accept an amendment that we tabled in Committee; at least, he produced a similar amendment today providing that there should—not must—generally be an inquiry, which is an improvement. Nevertheless, some parts of the Bill could do with a little more improvement. Like the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), we intend to ask those in the other place to consider how they might be able to improve it.
	I want to make five brief points. The Bill still tends towards centralisation. We reject the Secretary of State's power to force fire authorities to combine even when they are working well. We believe that if an authority is to combine with another, that must be at its instigation, because of reorganisation or because it is failing in some way. I do not believe that the Secretary of State's power to act for the sake of what are, effectively, cost savings is democratic. It pulls the rug from under local democracy.
	A lot still needs to be protected in terms of democracy. The Secretary of State is taking powers to remove elected members from committees. He can determine that a person is not fit to serve. When the Secretary of State can say, "We do not think this councillor is fit to perform this duty", a stiletto is pointed at the heart of local democracy. That is not a power that the Secretary of State should ever have. Local authorities determine who should be on their committees, and it is up to them to say who is fit to perform the role; it is not a matter for the Secretary of State.
	On accountability, we need still to consider what comes to this House and what does not. The Secretary of State has again turned down the reasonable request—from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge—that the national framework be considered in this House via statutory instrument. As was said earlier, it is flawed and it is very disappointing that we will be unable to consider it.

John Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Bill will entail big council tax rises to pay all the reorganisation costs?

Richard Younger-Ross: The Bill should save money, and we accept the principle that reorganisation should involve a cost saving. However, achieving parity for firefighters could involve an increase in costs, which we would support. That would be reasonable in order to secure equal pay for equal work.

Philip Hammond: indicated assent.

Richard Younger-Ross: I note that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge nods.
	Some spurious arguments were advanced today in respect of a well-thought-out amendment to establish a boundary review. Most people accept that, in this context, the regions of the south-west and the south-east are nonsense. They were created for different purposes and are not suitable as fire authority regions. Regardless of whether the other place can change the Bill's wording, I urge the Minister to accept the need for a boundary review at some point.
	We were nearly able to discuss sprinklers and their installation on Report, but we just ran out of time. The Minister gave a very good answer in Committee to the question of fitting sprinklers in new buildings, but we did not address their retrospective fitting. I urge those in the other place to table amendments to establish a review of existing properties, so that we can consider the practicalities of the retrospective fitting of sprinklers in schools, care homes and houses in multiple occupation. The cost of doing so could be saved through reduced insurance costs, and if we can save lives through such retrospective fitting, we should do it. That is not to say that we should give up on passive fire protection systems; rather, we see sprinklers as an additional protection. I urge the Minister to ask his noble Friends in the other place to look at the proposal sympathetically. There is a way forward, and I am sure that suitable wording and processes can be found to make it a reality.

David Drew: I shall continue the process of handing out plaudits by handing out mine to Ministers. They have listened, and within reason we have made good progress. As the lack of a Division at the end of Third Reading will show, this is a consensual Bill.
	I agree with what the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) said about sprinklers. To an extent, this has been a "something and nothing" Bill. The "something" is that at long last, we are introducing legislation that reflects a modern fire and rescue service, unlike the antiquated legislation that has been in place for so long that most people cannot remember why it was enacted. But other issues, such as sprinklers, have been deliberately avoided or regarded as inappropriate for this Bill. We had a useful debate on such issues in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) spoke very knowledgeably about what needed to be done, as one would expect, given his expertise. The Bill might not be the right vehicle for such matters, but they cannot remain an off-stage discussion.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and there has been consensus on both sides that once the research has been properly concluded, the issue of sprinklers must be addressed, if appropriate. From his discussion with his right hon. Friend the Minister, is it his understanding that the Secretary of State has the power to move forward on that agenda without the requirement for further primary legislation, or will we be waiting for a further primary legislative opportunity?

David Drew: I certainly believe that that is the case, and I hope that it will be confirmed soon after tonight's debate, but I understand the problem, because that matter will affect other Departments and other Bills. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have heard and taken on board the hon. Gentleman's point.

Richard Younger-Ross: rose—

David Drew: I had better not give way, because we need to allow other people to contribute.
	Another point that has been clearly made from this side is that we do not see the Bill as a cuts package in any way. Elements of it may involve a degree of rationalisation, but we have not discussed—

John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

David Drew: No, but I will sit down in a moment to allow the right hon. Gentleman to contribute.
	The key issue is how the resources are reallocated. If we want a modern fire and rescue service, working with the other emergency services, it is crucial for it to be properly funded. As I have said on numerous occasions, I have no problem with the regionalisation agenda as a strategic direction, but the Bill is not the way to deliver that, and it must not be used to do the work on the ground. If there are resources available, we must reinvest them not just in equipment but in the people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, are there day and night, doing the work, and are to be commended. If we are to make the fire service fit for purpose in the 21st century—particularly against the background of the developments that we are, sadly, seeing in this world of ours—we must make sure that those people have the resources to do the job properly.

John Redwood: The hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) are being a little optimistic tonight—perhaps whistling in the dark—knowing as they do that they are under a three-line Whip to vote for the Bill, which I suspect is a harbinger of cuts and reductions in the fire service that they love and want to support.

Philip Hammond: Just for the record, I should tell my right hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has not been shy, when fire and rescue matters have been before the House in the past, about defying his Government's Whip and voting with the Opposition.

John Redwood: I quite agree, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend has reminded the House of the hon. Gentleman's entirely honourable record. I was simply trying to persuade the hon. Gentleman that he should use his independence and freedom yet again, because I think that the Minister is selling him a pup on this important issue.
	I fear that this will be a typical Labour modernisation. We will see cuts in the service on the ground, among the people who have to deliver on not-very-good pay, but a massive expansion of bureaucracy, management and the administrative cadres. We will see large-scale recruitment of extra people called regional-this and regional-that: there will be regional chief executives, regional finance directors, regional chief officers, regional deputy chief officers and regional assistant chief officers across the country, who will be on huge salaries with cars and all sorts of perks. At the same time, the Minister will want to achieve some offsetting cost reductions. He will not achieve enough, but I am sure that he will squeeze the service on the ground. He therefore wants to go ahead with the plan to cut the number of centres around the country that deal with the emergencies and allocate the work. That is why he has got it in for the counties: he hopes that he can achieve some savings from demolishing county fire administration and replacing it with much dearer, grander, more expansive and more multi-layered administration at regional level.

Philip Hammond: rose—

John Redwood: I see that my hon. Friend is provoked yet again.

Philip Hammond: I was thinking that my right hon. Friend might want to try to provoke the Minister into a response by pointing out that his Department's internal estimates are that the cost of setting up the nine regional control centres, including the cost of redundancies from the existing control centres—because there will be considerable redundancies—is in excess of £100 million. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could provoke the Minister into a denial of that figure.

John Redwood: That is the sort of figure that I would have guessed, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend, who has studied this much more closely than I have, has done this very accurate costing. Of course there are going to be redundancies and cuts—I think that some hon. Members who value the fire service have been misled on this occasion—and of course there will be a massive expansion of jobs and non-jobs as the regions are set up. This is an attempt to drive England into a series of regions that are neither natural, sensible nor efficient. This is not the way in which anyone with any sense of history, tradition, business practice, efficiency or service delivery would organise things.
	It makes absolutely no sense to have a fire region covering everywhere from Dover to Milton Keynes, but leaving out London at the very heart of that region, when all the main transport links go through or just round the edge of London within the Greater London area. It makes no sense to suggest that Cornwall, Devon and Somerset all wish to be lumped together. People in Exeter do not want to look to Bristol or Truro; people in Truro do not want to look to Plymouth or Bristol; and people in Bristol are not wild about either Exeter or Plymouth.
	It is dangerous for the Government to think that they can impose this "redprint" for ruin, this regionalisation, on the fire service as the soft underbelly of local government in Britain. The Government hope that the counties will not regard this as such a strong attack on themselves as the complete abolition of the counties and their replacement with regional government would be. They hope that they can start the process off by tackling it service by service, and they have picked on the poor fire service in this Bill.
	The Minister should think long and hard before trying to destroy the very good administration and delivery that exists in the many county fire services around the country. He should understand their esprit de corps, and their sense of loyalty, place and tradition, which are very important in a badged and uniformed service such as the fire service. He should also understand that there will be no such loyalty or sense of achievement and tradition if he insists on introducing these expensive regional quangos above the county services.

Philip Hammond: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the responsible level of management is moved further from local communities to regional tiers, it is likely that local people will become more sceptical about whether the integrated risk management plan changes that are being introduced on the ground are really changes for the better and not just cuts? The further away they are, the more likely people are to be sceptical.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. These measures involve cuts in local democracy and accountability and in certain local jobs that need doing, coupled with the massive expansion of a new alien bureaucracy at regional level, which will be dearer, worse and less efficient, and without that sense of place, presence, tradition, efficiency and loyalty that is so important in the delivery of these services in proud metropolitan boroughs and proud counties around our country. England is a country of cities and counties; it is not a country of regions. Regions are entirely artificial constructs, and they cause anger, disagreement and dissension. I have never met anyone in Liverpool who wanted to look to Manchester for their government. I have never found people in Sunderland very willing to accept the sovereignty of Newcastle. Labour Members who represent many of those cities should understand that, and realise just how unpopular—as well as expensive and undesirable—this regionalisation will be.
	Unfortunately, once again, there is not enough time to debate the intricacies of the Bill. I would, however, like to make a few comments on charging. We had a very unsatisfactory response from the Minister in our interesting mini-debate on this subject earlier today. At one stage, I thought that he was using his intelligence and common sense to accept our proposition that it would be quite wrong to start charging people who had been damaged in a serious motor accident, when the fire service turned up to rescue them. At one point, he seemed to have rejoined the human race and to be saying, "Yes, that would be inhuman, it would be wrong. I will give the House a guarantee that people will not have to reach for their credit card when the fire service turns up." I then asked him whether he would put that on the face of the Bill, but he said that there was no need, as he had given his word.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge then tried to make the words clearer, so that he could then withdraw his amendment that would have prevented such charging, and the Minister backed off. He said that the Bill gave powers, but there was no present plan, and that after the next general election, if the Government were still in office, they might want to look at the matter again, and that perhaps studies would soon emerge that would mean that they would want to do that. He suggested that the power was there, but that perhaps local discretion had to be exercised.
	The Minister used weasel words. He left open the possibility that people will be charged when they have had a serious accident. I would be happy to give way if the Minister wants to revise his view and categorically state that that there was never any intention whatever to charge people when they had been involved in accidents in their cars. I see from the Minister's—
	It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [26 January]
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Business Of The House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, at the sittings on Tuesday 16th, Wednesday 24th and Thursday 25th March—
	(1) consideration of any Lords Message relating to a Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour; and
	(2) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Message relating to such a Bill has been received or any Reasons Committee appointed at that sitting has reported.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Hon. Members: Object.

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS

Ordered,
	That Mr Harry Barnes be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr Stephen Hepburn be added.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Muscular Dystrophy (Research Funding)

Bob Spink: A bid submitted to the Department of Health for research funding could provide treatment that would substantially extend life and improve the quality of life of those who suffer from Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The bid was co-ordinated by the Right to Survive Campaign—a coalition of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, Parent Project UK and the Duchenne Family Support Group. Hon. Members will be aware of the terrible impact of the disease on individuals and their families, and they will understand my constituent's motives for compiling a petition.
	I wish to present a petition, which states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled
	The Humble Petition of Mr. and Mrs. Luxton and others of like disposition sheweth
	That a consortium bid to the Department of Health for "molecular patch" Duchenne research, in the amount of £2.4 million, for funds under the White Paper on genetics for research into gene therapy for single gene disorders, has been submitted in October 2003.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to bring pressure on the Secretary of State for Health to support the bid, but in any event, to ensure that the research is funded and goes forward.
	And our Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

MMR VACCINATIONS AND AUTISM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Evan Harris: I wish to discuss issues around clinical ethics and research ethics in the work done at the Royal Free hospital by the inflammatory bowel disease group since 1995. Before I start, I would like to declare my interests. I was a member of an all-party group that recently visited the American society of clinical oncology conference for four days in Chicago, which was organised and funded by the pharmaceutical company Aventis. I am a member of the British Medical Association medical ethics committee, although I am not speaking for that body. I also spent a number of years as a member of the central Oxford research ethics committee, which gave me direct experience of many of the issues that I will deal with tonight. I am a member of the all-party group on autism, and my father is a recently retired professor of paediatrics.
	Autism is a serious condition, and all of us in the House need to be aware of how distressing it is to parents and other family members and how challenging and troubling autistic spectrum disorders are to the children and their families. The controversy surrounding the work of the inflammatory bowel disease group at the Royal Free should not detract from the need to improve the health and social care provided to the children or the need for more research into causation, diagnosis and treatment of developmental delay or regression in children. None of the criticisms that I make of the researchers, the ethical regulators and the Legal Services Commission should be taken to extend to the parents who gave their consent and co-operation to those studies in good faith. As we know, many of them still support the individuals involved and perhaps see no problem in what they did.
	In the scandal over Dr. Andrew Wakefield's failure to declare financial and conflicts of interest when his research group's article was published in The Lancet six years ago, the welfare of the children who were his research subjects seems to have been forgotten. Documents revealed by the investigative journalist Brian Deer and by The Sunday Times raise major doubts about a far more serious matter than publication misconduct. By that, I mean doubts and allegations about whether children were exposed to unacceptable risks and unnecessary procedures.
	I do not make those allegations lightly, conscious as I am of the need to avoid the abuse of parliamentary privilege, but there is very clear evidence pointing towards unethical conduct by the researchers—or by one or some of them—and equally strong evidence of failure and incompetence by the research ethics committee. The papers to which I refer are published on Brian Deer's website: www.briandeer.com
	In 1996, and subsequently, researchers in the inflammatory bowel disease study group subjected children to a battery of invasive tests. Those included upper GI endoscopy, which is passing a flexible telescope down the throat into the stomach and upper gut through the mouth or nose; ileo-colonoscopy, which is passing a flexible telescope through the anus and rectum right round the large intestine and into the small bowel; and spinal taps, which is passing a needle into lower back to drain some of the fluid that bathes the brain and spinal cord. Those procedures are not trivial on consenting adults, let alone on autistic children, who must be heavily sedated or even anaesthetised. In addition to those tests, the children underwent blood tests, brain scans and monitoring of electric currents in the brain.

Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Evan Harris: I shall certainly give way to the constituency MP for the Royal Free hospital.

Glenda Jackson: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman remembers that the hospital is in my constituency. Is he disputing the fact that the hospital's ethics committee was concerned, particularly about the fact that the project required children to undergo, as he has just pointed out, an intensive regime of investigation? The hospital's ethics committee put that point to the senior clinical investigator, Professor John Walker-Smith, who replied:
	"I can confirm that the children would have these investigations even if there were no trial."

Evan Harris: That is the key question, which I shall deal with. If that were the case, there would be less of a problem, although there would not be no problem at all. I do not believe that that was right then or that it is now.
	In 1996, just as now, there were tough rules to protect children from being exposed to risk for research purposes. We are not judging this case by the standards of today but by the standards of 1996, when four separate sets of guidelines applied. The guidelines were published and circulated by the Department of Health in 1991, the British Paediatric Association—now the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health—in 1992, the General Medical Council in 1994 and the Royal College of Physicians in 1996. The guidelines made it clear that children should not be exposed to anything more invasive or risky than a blood test unless certain conditions—likely specific clinical benefit to the child—were met; that proper approval be sought in advance from a research ethics committee; that the advice and instructions of the research ethics committee be followed to the letter; that changes to the agreed arrangements be agreed in advance by the research ethics committee; and that patients or their parents be given all the necessary information about risks for them to able to give adequate and adequately informed consent.
	The research ethics committee was bound by the same guidelines to refuse permission for any tests or procedures that were more than minimal risk if they were not in the best interests of the individual child. That means that so-called non-therapeutic research—as it was called at that time—where there was no likely clinical benefit to the child in terms of therapy, was not allowed to involve anything worse than a blood test.
	I shall quote some of the guidance that existed around that time. The BPA guidelines 1992 state:
	"Children are unique as a research group for many reasons. They are the only people, in British law, on whose behalf other individuals may consent to medical procedures. Many children are vulnerable, easily bewildered and frightened, and unable to express their needs or defend their interests . . . The physical integrity of children, as of all other people, is protected by law. Unless they, or their parents or guardians acting on their behalf, agree to it, nothing can be done lawfully that involves touching them . . . Parental consent will probably not be valid if it is given against the child's interests. This means that parents can consent to research procedures which are intended directly to benefit the child, but that research that does not come into this category can only be validly consented to if the risks are sufficiently small to mean that the research can be reasonably said not to go against the child's interests."
	The Department of Health guidelines 1991 are similarly clear:
	"Where the proposal is for non-therapeutic research, all of the above applies"—
	criteria for other patients—
	"but in addition the child must be subject to no more than minimal risk as a result of his/her participation."
	The local research ethics committee
	"should note that those acting for the child can only legally give their consent provided that the intervention is for the benefit of the child."
	The BPA was very clear about what sort of procedures were considered minimal risk, low risk and high risk:
	"High risk procedures . . . should be carried out only when research is combined with diagnosis or treatment intended to benefit the child concerned. It would be unethical to submit child subjects to more than minimal risk when the procedure offers no benefit to them, or only a slight or very uncertain one."

Glenda Jackson: Is the hon. Gentleman disputing what Professor Humphrey Hodgson, the vice-dean and campus director at the Royal Free and University college medical school, said in a statement issued on behalf of the school and the Royal Free Hampstead NHS trust:
	"The committee, after clarifying a number of issues . . . and having taken expert advice, approved the protocol submitted.
	The clinical management and the investigation of these children was performed at the Free by a dedicated team of consultant paediatric gastroenterologists, in full consultation with and agreement of the parents of the affected children."

Evan Harris: I disagree with the Royal Free when it says that the protocol was subject to rigorous ethical analysis, and I shall say why I do not think that the necessary requirements were met.

Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Evan Harris: I wish to make some progress, if I may.
	According to papers released to The Sunday Times by the strategic health authority, the research ethics committee did not appear to ask an independent outside expert—that is, someone who is independent and outside and expert—whether the battery of tests could be considered of therapeutic value to the children. In fact, after publication of the paper, the research ethics committee tried to claim that it was not even its job to make a judgment about whether procedures were in the children's best interests. That in itself is a shocking admission of incompetence, so the Department of Health should investigate every ethics approval that the committee has ever given for research on children, to see whether anything else was allowed through—in effect, on the nod.
	The published paper stated that the investigations had been granted clinical ethical approval by the ethical practices committee of the Royal Free, but the research ethics committee says, in a letter from the chairman to the dean, dated 24 July 1998:
	"On 9th July you wrote to me for my comment on the letter of Professor David Hull. In his letter Professor Hull states: 'I see that the investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust.' This is, of course, incorrect. We did not approve the investigations."
	However, the paper says clearly that the investigations were approved by the ethical practices committee of the Royal Free hospital. They cannot both be right. I suspect that both are wrong, in some ways, but one at least is wrong.
	As it happens, the researchers had submitted their application in a form to which approval might have been given, even if the research ethics committee had looked at it properly. The researchers asked for permission to carry out the tests on 25 children with a condition known as disintegrative disorder, which is also known as disintegrative psychosis or Heller's disease. DD is a much worse form of developmental disorder than autism, and the researchers stressed in their application that it is separate from autism. They said, in paragraph 5, "Scientific background", that
	"disintegrative disorder differs from autism in the loss of motor and self-help skills and usually, too, in the lack of more complex stereotype behavioral patterns".
	The researchers were clear on that point, and it is still the accepted view today. DD is of later onset and involves significant loss of acquired skills. DD is rare and, in a few cases, can be caused by a metabolic disorder that can be detected by high lactate levels in the cerebrospinal fluid. It could be argued that doing spinal taps on such children would allow doctors to diagnose a metabolic disorder, or to rule it out. Since such diseases are not treatable, generally speaking, the benefit is limited, but at least a benefit can be argued. However, no major group of doctors in the UK argued at the time, or argues now, that spinal taps be performed on children with autism for any clinical benefit, and certainly not as an excuse to obtain cerebrospinal fluid for private research contracts.
	Despite getting research ethics approval to perform the tests only on children with disintegrative disorder and despite the researchers stating that the tests were clinically necessary to benefit the children, the published research shows that not one of the 12 children had DD. One was diagnosed "Autism? DD?", but not one had DD. Most had autism. In another paper published later in 1998—an abstract in Gut—the authors admit to carrying out the tests on 30 children, only two of whom had DD. By 2000, some 60 children had been subjected to endoscopies, according to an article in The American Journal of Gastroenterology, of whom only two had DD. When the research ethics committee gave approval for the application it saw, it made it clear that any changes to the proposed tests or the group of children should be cleared with it in advance. That is standard, and it is written in the letter of approval. The research ethics committee received no such request to change the protocol, so up to 30 children were experimented on with no proper ethical approval and with no likelihood of individual clinical benefit.

Glenda Jackson: Is it not the case that, in the initial request, the criteria for investigation were that children
	"should have disintegrative disorder; have symptoms and signs of intestinal dysfunction, and there was a parental request for investigation to be undertaken"?
	Is it not also the case that disintegrative disorder is a syndrome that is part of the autistic spectrum?

Evan Harris: The selection criteria at paragraph 7 of the protocol application include "presence of disintegrative disorder"; the applicants state that the syndrome is separate, and it is established in their argument that it could be caused by something that would make a CSF test worth doing, but not by autism. Autism was not mentioned in the scientific background; had it been, I suspect that the procedure would rightly not have been permitted. When CSF tests on autistic children were required for Legal Services Commission purposes, no hospital in the UK gave ethics approval and children had to be taken to America for the tests. I hope that the hon. Lady understands the point that I making—[Interruption.] I want to continue.
	It turns out that Dr. Wakefield was receiving undisclosed funding for at least four of the children from the Legal Aid Board for some of the results. A central component of the deal was genetic analysis of fluid collected from those spinal taps, with further undisclosed payments for genetic analysis of biopsy samples from the bowels, following endoscopy. The evidence strongly suggests that, from start to finish of his research, Dr. Wakefield withheld the information about his legal aid board funding interest from the REC.
	The question in the protocol application under paragraph 10 was,
	"How are the substances for the study being provided, and how is the study being funded?"
	The reply was
	"Clinical research at the Royal Free Hospital (ECR)".
	There was no mention of any Legal Aid Board funding. The failure to disclose that information suggests that even the approval Dr. Wakefield received for 25 children with DD may be invalid. It also seems clear that he had no ethical approval to carry out those procedures on any child who did not have DD.
	Without ethical approval, the consent that the doctors obtained from the parents may not be valid. Without a valid consent, doctors could face action for assault. I do not dispute that the parents gave consent in good faith, knowing that there was REC approval for the study—albeit apparently for a different study from the one that was carried out—but even valid parental consent does not make it lawful to conduct high-risk research procedures on children with no likely clinical benefit.

Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Evan Harris: I must conclude, so that the Minister has time to reply.
	The whole affair seems dubious. It is not just that there was non-declaration of interest, nor that up to 30 children were exposed to invasive procedures under those tests, but that many more may have been thus exposed in tests agreed and funded by the Legal Services Commission with no ethical oversight at all.
	The GMC—currently the Government's favoured path—cannot investigate or judge the LSC. It cannot look into the actions of non-medically qualified management. It cannot make recommendations to prevent any such practices from happening again, nor can it look for similar acts. That is why an independent inquiry is needed—not a hospital inquiry. The accused cannot investigate themselves, especially because, as the letter read out by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) shows, they have already declared themselves not guilty.
	An independent inquiry is needed and the Government must order one. After all, such activities could still be going on at the Royal Free or elsewhere. Children need protection from that sort of research behaviour. If the Government cannot guarantee that it is no longer happening at the Royal Free or anywhere else, they have no choice but to order an independent inquiry.

Melanie Johnson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing a debate on this important subject.
	Like all Members, I care greatly about the health and safety of children and I am reassured that some of the infectious diseases that used to be devastating in childhood are now seen only rarely, if at all in some cases. It is easy to forget the impact that some of those diseases had. Nowadays, parents in the UK never see their children crippled by polio. Diphtheria and tetanus are exceptionally rare in children. Since the meningitis C vaccine was introduced in the UK in the 1990s, it has cut the rate of that terrible disease by 95 per cent.
	Immunisation in the UK has been greatly successful at protecting children against preventable diseases, and all those achievements have happened because of effective vaccination programmes. In particular, measles cases fell from more than 70,000 a year in 1987—before MMR was introduced—to fewer than 100 per year in 1999. Before MMR, there were between 15 and 20 deaths each year, but no child has died of acute measles for a decade.
	One of the greatest achievements was the prevention of congenital rubella syndrome and the avoidance of rubella-associated terminations of pregnancy. In 2001, there was not one single case of congenital rubella syndrome in England and Wales in which a woman acquired the infection in this country. Let us not forget mumps. Before MMR, it was the commonest cause of viral meningitis and lead to around 1,200 hospital admissions a year. The MMR vaccine has dealt a hammer blow to these three serious diseases of childhood and has released children from the risk of death and disability as a consequence, which is something with which I know that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) agree.
	The hon. Gentleman indicated that he is well aware of the significant media interest in MMR following the findings of an investigative journalist, Mr. Brian Deer, from The Sunday Times. Mr. Deer raised several concerns about the research carried out at the Royal Free hospital that first claimed a link between MMR and autism. The first concern was an alleged conflict of interest, and the editor of The Lancet has made it clear that the information now makes the original Lancet paper "fatally flawed". The second concern is about ethics approval for the research carried out at the Royal Free hospital, and I shall address that matter next.
	As the hon. Gentleman emphasised, ethical approval, especially regarding children, is an essential part of medical research, and such medical research involving children is a matter of increasing concern. It can be an important means of promoting child health and well-being, but as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health clearly recognises in its "Guidelines for the ethical conduct of medical research involving children",
	"Children are unique as a research group for many reasons. They are the only people, in British law, on whose behalf other individuals may consent to medical procedures. Many children are vulnerable, easily bewildered and frightened, and unable to express their needs or defend their interests."
	The importance of evaluating the possible benefit, harm and cost of research on human beings, and the possible ways of carrying out that research, are key issues. The benefits of research can be great, especially if the condition being investigated is common or if the research has a high chance of success. Possible harm must be assessed with equal care, and possible considerations of harm include questions of how invasive the type of intervention is, how severe the risks associated with the research procedures are, and how likely damage is to occur. These are common-sense issues that are difficult to question. Any parent would expect that research carried out on their children should have addressed those issues thoroughly and carefully, but balancing the pros and cons of research is often complex, as I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates. Research ethics committees play a vital role in considering the issues and advising on what is acceptable and what is not.
	Ethics committees are faced with the paradox of trying to be both stringent assessors and an approachable forum to help researchers to resolve problems. They have to compromise between aiming for the perfect protocol in advance and encouraging researchers to respond to families' unpredictable responses, which might require changes to research design later on.
	Questions have been raised about whether the lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that were carried out on children at the Royal Free were justified. Both interventions are invasive and are not undertaken lightly. Lumbar puncture—during which cerebrospinal fluid is extracted from the spinal cord for examination—is undoubtedly unpleasant and is not risk-free. Colonoscopies are unpleasant and distressing to the patient, and carry the risk of complications, such as perforation of the bowel.
	Should children at the Royal Free have undergone such investigations? Professor Sir David Hull and Professor Brent Taylor raised concerns in 1998. The research team believes that the investigations were justified, but I cannot say what was clinically justified for each of the children in the study. However, that shows why the approval of research proposals by ethics committees is so important.

Glenda Jackson: Is it not also the case that the independent ethical committee raised those very issues in 1996, before permission was given for the investigations to proceed?

Melanie Johnson: I am not an expert on all the details of the arrangements and I would not want to disagree with what my hon. Friend suggests, but we need to be certain that the right processes are being carried out. Ethics is about good practice. As the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health recommends, each research ethics committee that considers a project involving children should be advised by people with a close practical knowledge of babies and children. The ethics committee also needs to have, or to have access to, the appropriate expertise to cover the breadth of issues dealt with by the research proposal. That is demanding because of the complexity of much of the research undertaken. Input from independent experts is a means of ensuring that the committee can cover all the issues.
	The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the management of research at the Royal Free. I am sure that the hospital and my hon. Friend, as the local MP, will take careful note of his points and that the hospital will consider his concerns in the light of the statements it has made.
	The General Medical Council is considering serious matters of research and ethical conduct. We must await its deliberations and its indication of how it intends to take them forward in using its statutory powers. I assure the House that should aspects of the case require further scrutiny or investigation at that point, we will give them the most serious consideration and act appropriately. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are waiting for the outcome of the GMC's deliberations and will give them careful consideration. I trust that the Royal Free will also look at what he said and think about the appropriate response.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for her considered response. I raised my concerns with her some days ago. Does she accept that the GMC cannot consider the conduct of, and the procedures that were funded by, the Legal Services Commission because that is not part of the inquiry? Does she also accept that there may be other practices elsewhere of which she and the Department of Health may wish to take note? Are there not grounds for considering a wider inquiry, because there may be another form of investigation—by the Crown Prosecution Service—for which the GMC would want to wait?

Melanie Johnson: It is conceivable, although perhaps not likely—it is not for me to comment on the likelihood either way—that the case has not been brought to a final conclusion. The LSC has refused to grant further financial support for the litigants' case and it appears that it will not continue. However, notwithstanding the privileges that the House enjoys, it would not be appropriate for us to comment on something on which theoretically, if not practically, legal proceedings were still pending.
	I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the ethics committees. I am sure that the Royal Free has listened carefully to what he said.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.